Who's responsible for the dead coins?

[Mpamaegbu]

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.

[o48o]

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?

Wouldn't this depend on the coin? You might as well be asking who is responsible of dead products in real life. There can be as many reasons as there are companies.
1: Team don't have enough time or funds to keep on going.
2: Team lacked skills with coding, leadership, marketing or business in general to adapt to ever changing crypto scene and growing with the needs of it.
3: Team ignores the community and don't have enough transparency.
4: Competition did it better
5: No real use case for smart contract or blockchain, no real strategy, 
6: Bad tokenomics

Only difference being a crypto or real life product is that pump & dump groups can't use anything but crypto tokens as "speculative" asset while doing their pump and dump scheme.

[Bulltard]

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 team duh. that's called rugging

[shinratensei_]

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?

Wouldn't this depend on the coin? You might as well be asking who is responsible of dead products in real life. There can be as many reasons as there are companies.
1: Team don't have enough time or funds to keep on going.
2: Team lacked skills with coding, leadership, marketing or business in general to adapt to ever changing crypto scene and growing with the needs of it.
3: Team ignores the community and don't have enough transparency.
4: Competition did it better
5: No real use case for smart contract or blockchain, no real strategy, 
6: Bad tokenomics

Only difference being a crypto or real life product is that pump & dump groups can't use anything but crypto tokens as "speculative" asset while doing their pump and dump scheme.

in crypto market unfortunately even more specific is the shit coin market there's this thing called rug, this one rooted from the bad intention of the dev or team themselves in trying to steal money off liquidity pool provided by people.
this is where the mistake and blame should be put on the team instead.

i guess if the coins become dead coins due to team have been developing for many years that they are finally running out of money to sustain the development and even after all that effort the coin didn't even make it to meaningful market cap then I guess its due to the project just aren't working out, some project face such problem too, committed and trustworthy team facing the reality that their product just don't have place in the market and as a result bankruptcy and it also spells dead coin. which is quite unfortunate honestly.

but seeing from other perspective it is what it is the crypto market eliminates the coin that doesn't have place in the crypto space.

[terrific]

I think if anyone can be blamed for why a coin dies, then it is the fault of Dev and his team. However, they could not convince investors to continue investing in the coins they created. In addition, they may not innovate, develop or adapt, thereby placing competing projects above them. However, there must be information or something else that makes investors sell their assets and makes the coin worthless. If Dev and the team have innovation and can adapt to circumstances and make better developments, I think a project or coin will not go bankrupt.

All of the steps are being done by the developers and the teams that are involved with them. The investors are there only to fund and follow the movement of these devs.
If they've done something crazy and the investors didn't like it and found a red flag to their actions and they've been caught, that's the start of the misery of their projects that they'll never like.

[Belarge]

I think if anyone can be blamed for why a coin dies, then it is the fault of Dev and his team. However, they could not convince investors to continue investing in the coins they created. In addition, they may not innovate, develop or adapt, thereby placing competing projects above them. However, there must be information or something else that makes investors sell their assets and makes the coin worthless. If Dev and the team have innovation and can adapt to circumstances and make better developments, I think a project or coin will not go bankrupt.

Every project have the tendency of pumping and also dumping, it all depends on the tasks and market caps of the projects. The ability for the project to become attain to the public and basically to the top whales that knows how to place huge investment on such projects. Failed projects are as a results of relenting efforts from the team behind the project and the volatility of the market. Before executing a project, it's always advisable to scope the entire process and thoroughly doing the backup plan.

[Bitco55]

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 feel you may have asked and answered this question, but then...

When a coin comes into the market, what determines its price and how good it is, is it's popularity, and how many people are willing to invest in it? This makes the coin more trusted, more popular, and more valued.

If a coin comes into the market and due to some reasons, people are unwilling to invest in it, it'll lead to it's death and it's dis-listing. But what causes people to not invest in it is definitely a fault in it's programming, which is its developers or its marketing team's fault for not promoting it properly. People won't want to buy it cause no one would want to buy it from them. Although, most of these coins experience a short-term pump and leave, people's little trust in it makes the pump and death easier.

[Mate2237]

This should be a very simple knowledge to acquire because there no need to even also someone but naturally you will understand it. Ithe general blame must to the go to the developers because they control everything and not the investors. The investors are only following the way the developers program and doing with the project and they have nothing to do with the project so if the project fails it is the developers and not the investors.

Probably they lack of trust the project they have created base what they have done. Though the investors will make the project more important and popular but the developers controls the server and if the project is launched on decentralized system then the investors control the price in the market base on supply and demand. But the failure of any project is from the developers end.

[Wexnident]

~

Wouldn't it be the team? I mean they're the ones responsible to the development to the marketing the release after all. Investors are just there to slap the money to the teams hands so that they can use it to either improve/reduce the time it takes for the project to develop or to market the coin itself. Investors rarely have a say, or at least full control of what the coin would actually do moving forward. They have some sway in it, but that's about it. In the end responsibility would 100% lie on the team that handles the coin 24/7.

In a sense you can say that investors are simply the money involved, the brain is the team behind it itself, and the brain is the one that makes decisions on how to spend the money, not the money itself.

[Fiasem20]

If a coin dumps in the market cap,the developer is to be blamed because the project was solid to stand out.You can't blame the investors,the investors are you there to make profit and nothing much.But the principle of supply and demand also keeps the continuation of every project in the market cap.And when the liquidity is low the coin also crash.

[Huppercase]

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?

My answer is both.

When a team build a solid project, it will attract investors and not just ordinary investors but investors with long term vision and not the ones that will buy and dump everything in the market. When the team is able to raise good amount of money, it will also attract buyers that missout on the project but then even with huge amount of money, the team must have good product to impress and motivated people not to sell even though something bad later happened to the project, it could be bear market or anything negative.

Furthermore, if the team is not transparent, investors will sell. We have seen cases of teams selling coins behind investors back when it was meant to be locked in the first place, some even hide and sell foundation allocation just to lie that they need money for things they will never discuss with the public. When investors and teams relationship is not mutual, there will always be a benefit of doubt.

[Bushdark]

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 developers, team are responsible for the dead of a coin. The investors has nothing to do with the death of a coin.
If the team are able to . market a coin very well, they would make money but whwn the market is wrong or is not adequate, investors woukd starr selling theirnm holding to invest in other good projects thahmt could bring profits.
People would not put their money on coins that do not have good team or movement to double in price with time.

[el kaka22]

Basically "ALL" coins and tokens would have been high if the market responded well to it, so it is definitely not investors because you can't expect the investors to invest into everything. I have seen some devs who blame the market for "not understanding what they built" because they believe that if the market understood their aim then they would all be investing, but the problem is not the market not understanding it, it is the fact that dev team failed to do proper marketing and explain what they were trying to do.

This is why I believe that we should not be considering this as something big, we should probably consider that as a normal thing. I believe that we are going to get the better out of it, if we are given enough time on it as well.

[kotajikikox]

marketing staff?

I don’t think the blame should be placed completely on them. Yes marketing does help and if the marketing team managed to do all kinds of promotion out there surely they will be able to garner lots of interested people.

But a marketing team could only do so much with a coin. If the developers really developed the most useless coin ever in the world. What else can a marketing team do? They will just be called scammers and other names.


 

[Hispo]

It can be both, depending of the circumstances behind the launching of the coin and the context which could have led to its demise as a project.
For example, if the coin/project was supposed to be a scam from the beginning and developers just wanted to pocket some money from the wallets of gullible investors, then there is no doubt those developers are to be blamed.
Though, one could also find cases in which the project is actually a very good one, with some case and honest and working developers, but just because of bad luck at the beginning of the project a single entity bought a very important percentage of the total supply, if that entity decides to sell all of it in a single order, then the price will flatline and the investors will lose all trust, some will even assume that whale was one of the developers exit scamming.
As the interest for the project fades away, those developers stop giving support and the coin is officially dead.

As you can see, it is pretty much about how the situation devolves and how quickly it does.

[republicrypto]

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

for me, the team behind the project
but investors must know the risk of any investments opportunity
anytime we can lose our money
always remember "don't invest what you can't afford to lose"
regards

[AVE5]

marketing staff?

I don’t think the blame should be placed completely on them. Yes marketing does help and if the marketing team managed to do all kinds of promotion out there surely they will be able to garner lots of interested people.

But a marketing team could only do so much with a coin. If the developers really developed the most useless coin ever in the world. What else can a marketing team do? They will just be called scammers and other names.
 

Otherwise you're right because marketing team duties are based on speculations for promotions in specific attract Investors.
So if investors comes in to invest in the project and it happens that the coin doesn't have the potentials that attracted the Investors of course the very investors would dump the project.
At most considerate, some project developers has fails to maximize their project potentials in strategies to pin down investors, these developers are most time being too greedy to release funds for project services and once they've spent more than they budgeted, they began to think otherwise on how they can manipulate and recover their expenses through which the system would be crashed.

[laijsica]

marketing staff?

I don’t think the blame should be placed completely on them. Yes marketing does help and if the marketing team managed to do all kinds of promotion out there surely they will be able to garner lots of interested people.

But a marketing team could only do so much with a coin. If the developers really developed the most useless coin ever in the world. What else can a marketing team do? They will just be called scammers and other names.

 

The development team of the currency should take responsibility for the failure of the marketing system through the necessary campaigns because of the poor quality of tools and developers among them. The marketing and pricing of the useless coin is largely up to the developer team. Investors keep an eye on the currencys future performance and price movements which attract them to invest.Investors make their investment decisions by only evaluating the positive aspects of the currency and helping it move towards higher values.

[rhodelmabanal]

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?

I think both developers and investors are responsible for the dead coin, it is because if there is no investors the project will not earn funds to make a good development in the future, and if the developer make a project that is no good use case the investors will not become interested on it and it will make a coin or projects dead because no one will show interest to invest.

[redsun114]

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.