Who's responsible for the dead coins?

[AVE5]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while some says it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

[wxa7115]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Speculators cannot ever be held accountable for the fate of a coin, they care about one thing and one thing only, and that is to make money with such coins, if the coin were to collapse soon after it then they do not care about it, and it is even unlikely they may find out what happened as they are quick to move onto the next coin that could give them profits.

Then it is obvious the ones that can be held responsible are the developers, as they sold a vision of what they wanted their coin to become to investors and speculators alike, and at the end they failed to fulfill those goals.

[EarnOnVictor]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Many factors are responsible for the death of those coins if that is the right word to use and many are intentional, while others are not intentional. It is intentional when the developers are attributary to this, it might mean that their intention was to scam initially but later changed their mind when the project gained some relevance, or they are just waiting for the right time to abandon it and get away with the money. But in some cases, it might just be their negligence and not particularly caused by their bad intentions. This is why we need to be careful in the selection of our crypto projects to avoid asset loss. At times too, it could be due to too many issues that are beyond their control, it may be legal issues, the lack of cooperation among the developers or financial constraints.

The investors are a contributory factor at the same time. You see, what makes all these cryptocurrency projects to appreciate in price is that people lay importance on them and invest their money in them. But if a project has been wasting away for too long without good relevance and capital inflow, it could cause some chain reaction on the negative side (bearishness and little or no activity) that will lead them to become a redundant coin/token.

[btc78]

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

In my opinion, it’s the developers. Think of investors as consumers or customers or clients. They need to avail products or services that are of good quality. They will buy it no matter how expensive it is as long as they think it is valuable so if they think the product or service is no longer valuable then they will stop buying it making the demand shorter.

If the developers did everything but develop the project and promote it properly then that is on them and not on the clients.

[jrrsparkles]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

IMO the devs cause the lost hope on their project and let it die which is why it turns out to be ghosted and this happens only when they feel the project doesn't worth holding on it means devs know the project is not unique but still they went on to launch for making profits. I don't blame the investors because they put their money on something with only hope of getting returns, when it doesn't work they likely to save what's left in it.

[Essential10]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Personally I think both are responsible, some developers want to develop the coin some developers want to scam it. Whether the developer's intention is to survive in the market depends on whether they act honestly or dishonestly. Every investor wants whatever money he invests to have no loss and enough money to fill his pocket from the invested money. Meanwhile there are also investors who just want to get more money for less money and indulge in risky investment, we can't blame the developers when the project gets involved in scams. Before investing in the project, one should go through all aspects of the investment. You go in there knowing what's most likely to happen. Invest where you understand the good position, for example how much you doubt the developers of bitcoin, ethereum coins. When the coin dies only we raise our fingers in one direction. We must invest in places where we can calculate the profit by counting the taxes on our fingers, where there is no need to blame anyone.

[Bureau]

re are multiple reasons why a coin dies after few years of its existence. One of the primary reason is developer not innovative with the project. That leads to community selling their coins and existing from it. The other reason that I found most common is that there isn't any actual usage of the coin or unable to solve the real world issue. As of now the narrative is focused on meme coin and a few have been able to sustain their model but most new meme coins are not getting much hype and attention as developers hoped for when they started the project.

[Nothingtodo]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

A very interesting question is why a project owner should bear this risk where an investor will take all the returns of his investment.  Before investing you must invest carefully as you must bear the investment risk in this case Project Owner will never take responsibility for your dead coins.  So an investor should invest in the project very carefully planned and fully prepared to take risks.

[crwth]

It's both. Imagine someone having the power to have the number of tokens that they have, increase, and maybe get it in an early stage and they can move it around. Once they are able to see the coin listed in a big exchange or it's in DEX, they wait for volume and then they just dump everything. This is with the price going down but not dying.

The main responsible for the coin dying is going to be the developers. It's up to them to continue improving the project.

[X-ray]

depends on the cause if its investors dumping their bag to the market then its investors fault, then if its due to lack of development or there's security issue with the project that causes money to be stolen for example by irresponsible people then its devs fault, even though its not necessary always devs fault its really hard to know which fault it is to be honest, unless there's clear indicator and reason why the project tanked so hard it goes to zero.
like for example with the case of ust, the peg value lost because the entire system of the over collateralization of ust itself is flawed so some people take advantage of it.
even then it caused chain reaction that causes luna to tank also, this makes so many people lost the money, the court are the ones to determine which fault is this anyway.
same thing can be applied to other project, whether it lost value because investors or the devs there's need to be proof of that.
also, different category of alts might differ in reasoning.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Maybe for me its the developers since in order for the project to remain alive they must continue to work for the progress of their projects. People got their interest intact if theres lot of development and improvement on one's use case. So if ever they are just doing nothing then how the demand will increase? Community or investors are just there they will stay if potential is imminent.

[peter0425]

What can an investor do if a coin is not doing well?

It’s not like an investor should keep holding and wait for a miracle to happen. It’s up to the developers to keep the project afloat as much as they can. If they created a project then it should deliver and that will be the only time where we can see investors actually get interest. Investors can then grow speculations to attract more investors but again if the project does not meet their expectations then it’s all futile.

[Text]

I think the developer is mainly responsible for dead coins because if developers fail to maintain the coin, abandon the project, or the project was a scam from the beginning, the coin could end up becoming a dead coin. Investors only have a minor impact or contribution; if they lose interest, sell off their holdings, or move to other more promising coins, the coin could lose value and eventually become inactive. Perhaps investors wouldn't do that if developers responsibly did what they should do for creating the coin, maintaining its code, implementing updates, and often promoting it to potential users and investors.

[Ben Barubal]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

     That's just a simple explanation; the question is: how do coins exist in crypto trading? Not through investors or buyers who will buy the coin. And when the buyers of coins disappear, for sure it will gradually lose buyers or traders who will conduct trading activity.

     The buyers or investors are the oxygen of the coin so that it can exist for a long time or just for a while. Even if we say that the developer is doing good development, if there are no investors who are attracted to the coin, that coin will also die for sure.

[MAAManda]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Both developers and investors have their own responsibilities in token price movements, but when a project becomes a dead project, then it's entirely the developer's responsibility. Because the rise & fall of the price or MC of a project is normal, what makes the token price rise is the development that occurs and the trust of investors.

[Saisher]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

The main responsibility is on the developers; they failed to upgrade or develop the platforms, and they failed to properly promote their platform to the community, the developers if they did an ICO, should have funds to keep the platform moving, and investors would dump the token if there is no development or the roadmap failed to complete in time.
The developers should keep the investors and the community properly informed on the development and it should be in time because investors are quick to dump and trade it to other new tokens.

[God bless u]

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while done days it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

I think we the investors are responsible for the dumb coins. We are investing in these type of coins because of our greedy nature and limited knowledge we are not being able the recognise that which project is a spam and which is a genuine project.

These type of people will never stop and they can only be catered by not investing in their projects so that their confidence level may drop.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Why do we often see projects that have not achieved their goals, which we later call scams? That's because new ideas aren't new. The developers, having started their project, are simply lost in time, not knowing how to introduce new interesting, and useful innovations for a long time. What remains for investors? Just get rid of the coin so as not to be left a fool. I believe that developers need to think through their ideas not only at the initial stage but also consider all the bad cases that may happen in the future and ways to work around these cases so as not to end up with another dead project.

[electronicash]

marketing staff?  if not for the developers and investors then marketing staff after all they are responsible for making the project well known to the crypto community. but most of all, they are not supposed to create a coin that isn't well planned and has no study.

if they know there isn't going to be a big community that will support a project only meant for a store of value purpose, then there is already one that exists. they have to come up with something new.

[Kelward]

I think that developers and investors can be responsible for the death of a coin or token, it just depends on the angle from where the coins meets it's dead end. Most times it's from the developers end, some will have the intention of exit scam before the project is launched in an exchange, the first set of investors, including them will make profit, then when more investors starts to buy,  the project will then die. Other times if a project doesn't live up to it's hype, investors will see it as a shitcoin, and that might be the beginning of the end for it.