Who's responsible for the dead coins?

[Mate2237]

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Of course, it's the developer that should be held responsible for the death of their token/coin. Yes, I know there's that negative effect from the activities of dumpers; especially those who get the tokens from airdrops or bounties. It's the duty of devs to know how to cushion that effect and find a way to discourage heavy dumping. It should be done in a way that buyers can also show their strength while paper hands are selling off. Devs should encourage investors to hodl by putting up incentives like staking to earn and other activities. Again, there should be a good token unlock mechanism in percentage that won't be much as to have a lot of tokens released to airdroppers or investors. More importantly, most of the devs are criminals who intentionally would create scam and worthless tokens just to get money from unsuspecting investors. From start, they already know they're not going to develop that project further. It's just a cash out for them, easy money.

Exactly you have said it all. The developers are the ones will make the project more transparent and not in a cumbersome way that will make people to stay away from it. They have to make it in the way that the transaction fee will not high and always low. And they fall to maintain their coins or token then they have to bear the consequences of the dead of their tokens or projects. And whenever there is problem facing the project developers have to look for solution and solve it without delay because right now the cryptocurrency space is on competition so if any project misbehaviour people would just leave it and go to another one.

The genuine developers always look for a way to solve their problem but the fraudulent developers have no clue of their tokens so they let it die. So don't blame investors in any token failure but the developers.

[CoinMin3r]

How can investors be responsible if a coin or token dies? Investors wouldn't keep investing or holding a coin or a token that doesn't carry any weight because the project is dying, they know it would keep losing value over time and it is much better if they dump their share and exit. No investor in the market would invest in a project that doesn't have a future, and that future can only be seen if the developers stay active and keep investors updated with their developments.

I have been a part of projects that died, and I know how investors react when they see no interest from developers and the team and receive no updates and other information about the roadmap and future developments of the project because they know they are going to lose money if the project dies.

Definitely dev team is responsible for the dead coins not the investors. Dev team must keep engaging with community and make their project interesting enough for investors to invest/hold. If one doesn't feel confidence about their investment, why would he keep holding. So as soon as he looses confidence, he just exits.

[Adbitco]

Project owners decides how their coin/token could be and if they really want the project to survive they would try their best to make sure the project remain on the surface, where developer comes in is trying to increase the total supply maybe, they would want to rebrand their project and mint more token in circulation. Most times price is being manipulated by whales who are holding major shares of the token/coin at this point there would be some percentage they will dump it will affect the market but if is a project that has stabilized or have a higher market cap then there wouldn't be any serious dump except for the general market forces like news or upcoming events such as having, bull run, and bear season these three things mostly influences the market.

[GideonGono]

For me it is the developers fault or the teams fault, they are the ones who are responsible for the projects movement, promotion, publicity and even fund management.
The investor could sell their shares, but the team should also have some plans on how they would handle such thing, they entered this market knowing that those kind of incident isn't new, so they should've plan it all.

[laijsica]

For me it is the developers fault or the teams fault, they are the ones who are responsible for the projects movement, promotion, publicity and even fund management.
The investor could sell their shares, but the team should also have some plans on how they would handle such thing, they entered this market knowing that those kind of incident isn't new, so they should've plan it all.

Developers can be held liable in most cases because they play a major role in marketing and promoting low-quality coins. Even promotions and campaigns are done according to their policy. Skilled marketing team in their strategies and all activities of the investment platform to attract investors. The marketing team must pin their responsibility on market management and pricing. Investors tend to focus only on analyzing the value and future of the currency.

[wxa7115]

For me it is the developers fault or the teams fault, they are the ones who are responsible for the projects movement, promotion, publicity and even fund management.
The investor could sell their shares, but the team should also have some plans on how they would handle such thing, they entered this market knowing that those kind of incident isn't new, so they should've plan it all.

There is not really any other valid the answer, the developers have complete control over their project and they can do whatever they want with it, if even under those circumstances the project they created dies then that is on them.

However, very often I see the developers trying to blame anyone but themselves about the collapse of their coin, and it is obvious why this is the case, as if they are the ones at fault, then how they can promote other projects on the future and gain the trust of new investors with such a stain on their curriculum?

[Strongkored]

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?

Investors who are disappointed with the development of the altcoin they are holding can express their disappointment by dumping away the coins, especially if they are a big holder so that the investor will get profits from other projects, and developer can also be the cause of the coins being dumped because the initial aim of this project was to cheat, so developers will dumping their coins for their own benefit, that's why we have to be careful with new and old altcoins, because as investors we don't know for sure the developer's true intentions for this project, but often altcoins do provide bigger profits and quickly and the risks are also bigger.

[gunungkembar]

For me it is the developers fault or the teams fault, they are the ones who are responsible for the projects movement, promotion, publicity and even fund management.
The investor could sell their shares, but the team should also have some plans on how they would handle such thing, they entered this market knowing that those kind of incident isn't new, so they should've plan it all.

There is not really any other valid the answer, the developers have complete control over their project and they can do whatever they want with it, if even under those circumstances the project they created dies then that is on them.

However, very often I see the developers trying to blame anyone but themselves about the collapse of their coin, and it is obvious why this is the case, as if they are the ones at fault, then how they can promote other projects on the future and gain the trust of new investors with such a stain on their curriculum?

That's right, the main key to the success of a digital currency project is of course in the developers. As long as they have good teamwork and have high loyalty, this will provide success for the project they develop. Investors basically look at the projects they are developing, not at the people who promote these projects.

[Velemir Sava]

That's right, the main key to the success of a digital currency project is of course in the developers. As long as they have good teamwork and have high loyalty, this will provide success for the project they develop. Investors basically look at the projects they are developing, not at the people who promote these projects.

There will be a lot of garbage in our account later if you choose the wrong coin when you buy it wrong and ivest and what you said is also certainly true, but if financial support to the team is lacking by the main owner, I am sure they will also be lazy to innovate to make increased activities through various advanced programs that essentially make the coin more functional and known.

[AnonBitCoiner]

I think Both are responsible for the declining of the coin's value due to which the coin becomes dead. First of all creators create the coins but don't focus on further development of that coin due to which that coin does not work well and is not utilized for better purposes.

Another thing is that Investors do not show any interest towards the investment of such coins so when there is no demand then the coin reduces more and more in worth and eventually it becomes worthless. Improvement of a project is very necessary so if creators do not work for the improvement of their created coin then its future will be worse.

[justdimin]

The developers are the ones will make the project more transparent and not in a cumbersome way that will make people to stay away from it. They have to make it in the way that the transaction fee will not high and always low. And they fall to maintain their coins or token then they have to bear the consequences of the dead of their tokens or projects. And whenever there is problem facing the project developers have to look for solution and solve it without delay because right now the cryptocurrency space is on competition so if any project misbehaviour people would just leave it and go to another one.

The genuine developers always look for a way to solve their problem but the fraudulent developers have no clue of their tokens so they let it die. So don't blame investors in any token failure but the developers.

Dev teams should take 100% of the blame, they just do not realize how much work it is to make a project, and they just think that if they create some random token, and do airdrop, they could get away with a lot of money and then when they get funded they could get better coders and marketing. That's not how it works, not at all, you need to do all the marketing and coding beforehand, so that people would fund you, if you take the funds then it is likely that you are going to pay yourself before you pay anyone else.

This isn't some charity, we are not here as investors to pay you for your work, we are here to invest, and make money and this means that we will see a lot of people that will end up with a lot of trouble on the long run.

[AVE5]

How can investors be responsible if a coin or token dies? Investors wouldn't keep investing or holding a coin or a token that doesn't carry any weight because the project is dying, they know it would keep losing value over time and it is much better if they dump their share and exit. No investor in the market would invest in a project that doesn't have a future, and that future can only be seen if the developers stay active and keep investors updated with their developments.

I have been a part of projects that died, and I know how investors react when they see no interest from developers and the team and receive no updates and other information about the roadmap and future developments of the project because they know they are going to lose money if the project dies.

I feel you. Investors aim in investing in a project is to make profit and when the coin isn't going hopeful and promising to offer those profits in the future investors would begin think otherwise by withdrawing from the project.
So it'd be the developers fault to had left the system unserviced with the mechanical improvement cordially to respond to investors expectations and failure for developers taking that responsibility becomes an awareness that the coin is going dead.

[Tipstar]

No one are. It's not like that they went out of circulation. They are there in your wallet. They just don't get enough value for people to keep transacting and exchange keep supporting them. 99% of dead coins are half-hearted pump and dump coins, where the developer works on it for short time by choice. The early investors profit from the pump while later investors are the one responsible for not doing proper research about the coin. There are no identity proof or team reveal for people to initiate a legal fraud case.
On some others, the development team and in case of community owned coins the volunteers can't keep up or could no longer maintain the project even if they want to. With rising competition, we'll be seeing more and more once popular coins die at our life time. Not every coins are future proof so we need to keep analyzing what we hold.

[X-ray]

For me it is the developers fault or the teams fault, they are the ones who are responsible for the projects movement, promotion, publicity and even fund management.
The investor could sell their shares, but the team should also have some plans on how they would handle such thing, they entered this market knowing that those kind of incident isn't new, so they should've plan it all.

with the law of supply and demand its just hard to determine which one at fault, but honestly its just both fault, the investors are investing in a project in which lacking liquidity probably because they have too much of a coin causing people to be hesitant in investing their money afraid the investors would dump them meanwhile the team are just not really good at executing whatever roadmap they are having probably the cause of the coin succumbing to become a coin with zero liquidity meaning its a dead coin.
I guess with the investing, it works like you are investing into a new company, you just don't sure whether its gonna become successful in the future, and the money spent for business expendables aren't really sure to be able to return.
so if it went zero then its investors' loss as well as long as the team abide to the roadmap they proposing to the investors anyway.
but most of the time coin become dead because the coin just not that good.

[kentrolla]

There is no way on earth we can blame investors for the dead of Altcoin, it's a total failure of dev team and entire management because investors are the believers of the project which do what an investor can do by investing the money but it's the job of marketing team to outreach investors and dev team to develop the project and ensure it's adopted by users.

[wxa7115]

It's a bit of both, really. Developers play a big role in the tech side, like keeping the coin updated and secure. But investors drive the market, so if they bail, the coin tanks.

But you are skipping the most important part, why would investors abandon a project all of a sudden? Is it because it is a great project and they are simply doing a series of actions that go against their own interests just because? Or are they bailing on that project because it is a terrible one and they have lost the hope they had in it?

And if is is the latter, then who is it to blame for such a thing? The developers, so it is a mistake to blame the investors for the collapse of a coin, since the collapse was caused by the developers and their mistaken decisions they took along the way.

[sekalitas]

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?

In my opinion, the developers bear the primary responsibility for a coin becoming "dead." It's their job to create a compelling coin with good utility and to market it effectively to attract investors.

When a coin loses value and investors withdraw, it's usually because the coin no longer serves a purpose or isn't interesting anymore. The blame mostly falls on the development team, as they are responsible for the coin's success. If the coin truly had potential, investors would trust the team and continue to invest.

[woez]

Definitely dev team is responsible for the dead coins not the investors. Dev team must keep engaging with community and make their project interesting enough for investors to invest/hold. If one doesn't feel confidence about their investment, why would he keep holding. So as soon as he looses confidence, he just exits.

Of course, the first thing to blame is those who are seen as failing to realize what was previously considered successful and promising investors high profits at all costs to invest in their platforms.

My question is, if such conditions are already bankrupt will they compensate for losses and all losses to their users. I thought, no. They will run off and shut down all information channels related to their project.

[laijsica]

There is no way on earth we can blame investors for the dead of Altcoin, it's a total failure of dev team and entire management because investors are the believers of the project which do what an investor can do by investing the money but it's the job of marketing team to outreach investors and dev team to develop the project and ensure it's adopted by users.

I agree with you, the failure of the development team is responsible for the death of the altcoins. Developer teams may have inconsistencies in their operations that may not attract investors. Dev teams use various strategies to attract investment but they may not focus and control price volatility. Investors basically want to invest where their capital will be safe. So coins death is mostly over the dev team.

[Yatsan]

No one really has fault of it but if there will be one to have chances of sustaaining the project in long term, that would be the team behind it of course. We have no control of majority's favor when it comes on projects but the team could improve its sectors such as being active to social media platforms, to continue updating the project, and the likes to simply make a project alive. We cannot force people to engage into a project but at least  people who started a project could do something when comes on prolonging a project's presence to this industry.

Definitely dev team is responsible for the dead coins not the investors. Dev team must keep engaging with community and make their project interesting enough for investors to invest/hold. If one doesn't feel confidence about their investment, why would he keep holding. So as soon as he looses confidence, he just exits.

Of course, the first thing to blame is those who are seen as failing to realize what was previously considered successful and promising investors high profits at all costs to invest in their platforms.

My question is, if such conditions are already bankrupt will they compensate for losses and all losses to their users. I thought, no. They will run off and shut down all information channels related to their project.

They cannot compensate their investors because all of them took the risk. It should be more of a mutual understanding; investors helping to promote the project and the developers to continue improving it to attract more people and to contribute with the project's growth.