If a crypto project has no token, Would you still care about It?

[wapwapwendy]

I've noticed that a lot of people in crypto pay attention to projects mainly because of their tokens, airdrops, or potential profits.

But what about projects that are actually building something useful without having a token?

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

On the other hand, there are projects with tokens already trading, but sometimes the product itself doesn't seem to get much attention.

I think this says a lot about what people are really looking for in crypto.

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

[MAAManda]

If a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

I might use it, provided it’s genuinely useful, but does such a project actually exist in the industry?

Throughout my time in the crypto industry, where native tokens serve as the mechanism for executing any action, I have never seen a single project that didn't have its own token. If it turns out they don't have a tradable token, they certainly have a governance token at the very least. So, I think you're just going to talk nonsense here, sorry I don't mean to offend you.

[asriloni]

I've noticed that a lot of people in crypto pay attention to projects mainly because of their tokens, airdrops, or potential profits.

But what about projects that are actually building something useful without having a token?

Honestly, people in crypto can't be far away from the finnacial motive, and incentive is something they're looking for. When a platform offers incentive, it will be so crowded. I can be careless with it when it offers no incentive while it's creating product that i don't need it.

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

I would still follow them and use their product if they're creating a product that gave me what i need.

On the other hand, there are projects with tokens already trading, but sometimes the product itself doesn't seem to get much attention.

So true and i put them on my ignore list.

I think this says a lot about what people are really looking for in crypto.

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

I'd give it attention only if i thought the product useful for me. in example, i'm still actively using stargate for bridging purpose without getting any incentive. However, tokenless platform would be more beneficial because it's the same like you're killing two birds with one bullet.

[MArsland]

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?
Curious to hear your thoughts.

Let's take an example, the basic network. Is Base still widely used despite not having tokens? indeed, there were rumors about $BASE, but until now nothing is absolutely certain.
Well from the Base Network we can see that when their products are able to provide solutions, especially in completing trilema plus a running ecosystem, it does not make the Base abandoned just because it does not have tokens. So this depends on how efficient the products from Base are and how useful the ecosystem is for investors. Their collaboration with several institutional platforms earned Base attention.

[zasad@]

I've noticed that a lot of people in crypto pay attention to projects mainly because of their tokens, airdrops, or potential profits.

But what about projects that are actually building something useful without having a token?

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

On the other hand, there are projects with tokens already trading, but sometimes the product itself doesn't seem to get much attention.

I think this says a lot about what people are really looking for in crypto.

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

I always try to read a project's tokenomics. It’s very strange if a crypto project doesn’t have its own token or coin. Although some projects operate without one- for instance, Base an Ethereum L2 doesn’t have its own token, yet many people have used the ecosystem hoping for an airdrop.
Still, Base is an excellent ecosystem with low fees, which is why I use it.

[uneng]

I would love to see a crypto project not having their own token, rather using Bitcoin for it. Crypto market doesn't need thousands of useless tokens. It just need few coins which could work for every useful and practical projects available. This way we would be protected against the massive speculation going on which kills tokens overnight and cause adopters to lose money in vain.

[Slow death]

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

Most people look at new projects with the aim of investing and making a profit. There is nothing wrong with that they are investors. However, they also want to see quality projects, as this significantly increases their chances of making a substantial return on their investment. On the other side, project creators appreciate being valued; just as any company likes to see its stock achieve a high market capitalization on the exchange, this is a scenario where both parties the creator and the investors can gain a lot.

Unfortunately, what often happens is that investors put money into projects that lack any real substance; yet, because the creators are famous, wealthy, and engage in massive marketing campaigns, the project's market value skyrockets, and the only ones who profit are the initial investors and the creator. That is why I prefer to stay away from new projects; I believe Bitcoin is the better investment.

[jossiel]

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

Definitely, we're in the times that we need projects that have real use cases and not just theoretical and proposals.

The airdrop times are also done and we are looking for the projects that can stay and have honest developers.

On the other hand, there are projects with tokens already trading, but sometimes the product itself doesn't seem to get much attention.

Because their main product is the token itself and they've made money through its sale.

[Localhostspeed]

I've noticed that a lot of people in crypto pay attention to projects mainly because of their tokens, airdrops, or potential profits.

But what about projects that are actually building something useful without having a token?

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

On the other hand, there are projects with tokens already trading, but sometimes the product itself doesn't seem to get much attention.

I think this says a lot about what people are really looking for in crypto.

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

I actually prefered a project that does not have token but in crypto world, most of the projects don't survive without public offering. The venture capital money do wear out and if there is no incentive or enough revenues generated through fees, it's usually difficult to build without money to pay the team. At one point in time, they will get tired, the project will be abandoned and everyone will move on.

As bad as altcoin market looks, projects that have tokens don't survive, many have folded this year how more of a project that does not have a token. Exchanges that has token folded up even though they have a token that powered the exchange yet they complained about the market decline and low patronage. Many crypto projects don't survive without capital to fund the running cost.

[Jostle]

A crypto project/product/platform with no token, could be attractive. That means that they develop the product for its useability. Its method of charging could be in terms of USDC (so that it still gain revenue), but there is no token per se.

Then you evaluate the product/project/platform for what it is, similar to any non-crypto product - whether you would use its underlying products and services. I do know of a few crypto projects without tokens.

[JeromeTash]

Why would it be called a "crypto" project then?

I think a perfect example is companies that have not "tokens" but have a working product. There are so many of them out there, but even then people will get interested because they think the company's stocks or shares will grow with time.

At the end of the day, people are out there to make money; a few will just do it as a hobby or something like that.

[Rengga Jati]

But what about projects that are actually building something useful without having a token?

As it happens, there are several crypto projects that have yet to launch their initial tokens. Typically, these are projects centered around specific services. For instance, Polymarket, certain protocol layers, and various other platforms. They provide specific services. Yet they have not launched (or have chosen not to launch) a token. So, personally, I just go ahead and use these services or platforms if I actually have a need for them.

[TastyChillySauce00]

If the project is genuinely helpful, I will use it and I'm still using several projects where I've received an airdrop form until this day because they actually solve real problem, that's the keyword. If the project really solve real problem it will have users regardless, like curve's stable pool where it reduce pool fee unlike ordinary amm pool and so on.

Even until this day i'm still using layerzero's bridge to bridge my asset as well as others. The question is, did the developer built the project with real usage in mind? I bet many of them don't. It's not only users who anticipate TGE but the team as well because they can create money out of thin air.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

Can we include exchange market? like Binance? They have the product to offer and people use the exachange even withoout the token. They launched BNB later not at the start right?
So they have the product but no token yet.

It will depend on the product offer from any company, they can be useful with out the token or coin.

[Rabata]

I think that if there were no financial incentives in the crypto ecosystem, most people would not try to use these services. I am not saying that everyone does the same thing, but there are many who need it and prioritize the service and product over money. Having a token only is not the main thing for everyone.

There are many users who use new projects only for their own benefit. If there were no financial benefits, they would never use the product of that project. They complete testnets, transactions and various tasks in the hope of getting tokens. If there were no tokens, many of them would not try to do those tasks.

If a project has a token, users get interested to do the work in the hope of getting that token. They think that if they get that token in the future, the value of that token can increase a lot, which increases the interest in using the project.

An important point here is that having a token does not mean that any project will be good or that people will use it in the long run. There are many projects that have tokens but people do not use them because their products are not good. Again, if there is no token but the product is good, then many users will be interested in using those products. It should be remembered that tokens and products are not the same thing.

[RGBTC]

I might use it, provided it’s genuinely useful, but does such a project actually exist in the industry?

There are many impressive wallet projects currently in existence that do not have own tokens (such as Electrum, MetaMask, etc.). Blockchain infrastructure provider (like Blockscan, Alchemy, DefiLlama and others) also do not have own tokens.

Furthermore, there are certain DeFi lending or exchange projects that, from a technical standpoint, do not actually require a token. They simply create tokens for the purpose of managing funds, rather than having them play an active, direct role within their own service protocols. A case in point is Uniswap.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

On my list, we have Blockstream, Trezor, Ledger, MetaMask, Chainalysis and Electrum, if you are actually interested in knowing the crypto projects that is successful despite not having a native token, those are the ones I can think of and there are a lot of people using them, so if actually a crypto project does not have it's native token but has a good service it is providing, then I can use it. Just for example, a lot of CEx and DEx if not all of them have their native token but so many crypto enthusiasts are using these exchanges without even paying attention to their native token, meaning that people can still use a project that doesn't have a native cryptocurrency.

[Nightwatchmare]

The main reason investors pay attention to a project and invest in its token is because of its useful product because they know that in the long run they could possibly make profit, investors do not invest in a project because it has a token. Yes, i would give to a project which has useful product but no token the same attention i would give to a project that has useful product with a token. For example, if a crypto project is into booking of flight to any country in the world and they are not scammers, i would give a good attention to the project to know how they operate what is their fees to different countries so that any day the need for me to travel abroad comes i would make use of the service of the project.

[Lontor]

If a crypto project has no token it means they are very serious about what they do, there must be something about their utility that people can't say no to, I would look into their project right away.

It's like saying no to multi million dollars profits as many Blockchain projects are been built to get funded and drained by the developers, sorry all you crypto alt lovers, most Devs have only one mission, to get themselves rich.

[goldkingcoiner]

I've noticed that a lot of people in crypto pay attention to projects mainly because of their tokens, airdrops, or potential profits.

But what about projects that are actually building something useful without having a token?

Would you still follow them or use their products if there was no chance of getting an airdrop or making money from them?

On the other hand, there are projects with tokens already trading, but sometimes the product itself doesn't seem to get much attention.

I think this says a lot about what people are really looking for in crypto.

So here's my question: if a project has a useful product but no token, would you give it the same attention as a project with a token?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

If I have no way of investing and being part of that project, why would I care about it? There is a reason why crypto communities get so big; because everyone has some skin in the game.

What's my part in this community? Just cheering them on? Nah, that sounds like a waste of time to me.