Why does Owner of the token/coin when it has value always change Smart Contracts

[justdimin]

As a bounty hunter, I will definitely be happy to receive the results of the campaigns that have been followed in this forum, but I myself am confused why the Owner always replaces the smart contract even though the token/coin is already known. what is the meaning of the tokens that have been distributed to participants, is it just for fun?

The common reason is they want to make people think that they are creating something good to their tokens and hoping for investors to see that this is good updates happen to their project.

But eventhough that's the case sometimes this is not the intention of some developers and actually we cannot hit up the main intention because as many says devs have different reason on why they implement a replacement on their smart contracts.

I believe that most of the time they are "updating" it to make it better in the code part of it. Audits are a real thing, and when you create a token with a contract that doesn't pass the audit check, then it is going to be a problem. I have seen many people who did it because they found some problems with the contract.

It is simple really, if CertiK for example says that there is something wrong with it, you update it, do a new contract, and ask them to check it again, and if it is clear then you stay with that but if there is some more then you make another one and check it again. One project I worked with literally had 3 contracts because of an issue.

[ragini330]

As a bounty hunter, I will definitely be happy to receive the results of the campaigns that have been followed in this forum, but I myself am confused why the Owner always replaces the smart contract even though the token/coin is already known. what is the meaning of the tokens that have been distributed to participants, is it just for fun?

There’s a two reason, either to improve the project by using other contracts or to scam their investors.
There’s a lot of situation like this before and some turns into a scam project after collecting money from the investors. This is why we should always take profit with our bounty reward since not all can sustain their momentum in long term. If you see a project change into another contract better to analyze it, and know if its still worth it to hold that token.
[Because they are insecured like the market getting volatile. I suggest one should have alternative investment and earnings. Have you heard of Mallconomy]

[RealMalatesta]

I believe that most of the time they are "updating" it to make it better in the code part of it. Audits are a real thing, and when you create a token with a contract that doesn't pass the audit check, then it is going to be a problem. I have seen many people who did it because they found some problems with the contract.

It is simple really, if CertiK for example says that there is something wrong with it, you update it, do a new contract, and ask them to check it again, and if it is clear then you stay with that but if there is some more then you make another one and check it again. One project I worked with literally had 3 contracts because of an issue.

This is true and very real. I have met with quite a lot of people back in the day, and most of them went ahead and made their own projects later in life. When you have been in crypto for so many years like me, you meet with a lot of people who get rich, and when they get rich, they want to get richer and they build new projects.

I have seen all of them get audits, and at least half of them would have another token with a new contract after the audit to fix things, and maybe like 5-10% of them would get a third one to get even a better one. Sure,it is a bad situation for the project no doubt, but having a shitty contract and sticking with it would have been even worse.