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

[vs2014]

Firstly it's important to understand the difference between investing in a project and using a project's product. Moreover we should judge a project based on the service it can provide instead of looking for tokens rewards. However money always involved with crypto market and most of people will leave if there's no chance of making profit. Besides teams need financial support to run their protect along with its development. If a project can solve real life problem and match my interest, then no problem to choice the project.

[zasad@]

I’d like to add my two cents to my previous post. Crypto regulation in the U.S. is currently moving very slowly, which creates a number of regulatory-related risks. I’ve read that some major projects prefer to opt for a clear financing model based on equity an approach that is well-understood by all investors in this market.

[batako]

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.

No one cares about crypto but instant profits they might get while the hype is still there!

So, I bet, people wont follow let alone touching the product if a project didnt offer benefits for its users.

[coin-investor]

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?

The value of a platform is not in a token but in its use case. The use case will stand the test of time, while the token will become useless if there is no platform associated with it with a usecase.

This is why memes become useless over time: a lack of use cases. Use cases are everything, no token can exist without it, but platforms can continue to exist without a token.

[MAAManda]

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.

You're right, mate. I missed all of that & maybe we can exclude Electrum since this discussion is in the altcoins section, as for others like MetaMask or DefiLlama, we never really know what the future holds. I feel that they will monetize their platform, much like what Arkham has done.

It honestly never occurred to me that something like that could exist in this industry, because, generally speaking, projects are focused on the output of the work being done, aren't they?

[_act_]

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?

There are many projects that has no tokens. Even there were some that did not have a token before but later had a token. Example is Wallet Connect that did not have a token before until 2025, but people have been using WC since years ago. There are some like noncustodial wallets that do not have a token. If the project is useful, people will definitely use it. But you can see some of them not having tokens today, that does not mean they will not have tomorrow, although not all of them will have tokens.

Polymarket is widely used today, but not having token yet.