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

[RGBTC]

Blockchain infrastructure provider like Alchemy and others are registered companies and their product is subscription based instead of open protocol, having token would be strange.

If we are to make a token or coin function as a true "currency" without having to wait for it to achieve a global level of trust, I believe they more deserve to have a utility token, as it functions as public infrastructure; holders could use the token directly to pay for service fees, rather than it serving merely as an object of speculation. So far, I’ve observed that many public infrastructure such as paid AI services, implement a non-transferable credit balance system. This means that the remaining money you deposited will stay there, regardless of whether you choose to use it or not.

[Localhostspeed]

The reason why people focus more on the project tokens is because that's where the economic value is. If the project has no tokens, then they have to ensure that the core products are useful and adds value for users that use it. For instance, if it's a tool or platform that users can use to access some sort of value, then yes, they would still care.

That was before when tokenomics was very important to people and how the project is grown, now it's almost nothing. Don't you see meme coins with billions worth of market cap? They don't raise money from public offering, they don't do marketing, they just list the coin and people rush to buy and that's it. There is no economics in those coins and they are making billions. There are some coins like Arbitrum doesn't use it's token for fee yet they created one for governance and it's worth billions.

Some teams create tokens and don't associate it with the project because of the fear of SEC. You know Gerry was hunting down some projects and was categorizing them as security, some teams create tokens without public sale, they did IEO to get away with the law and some of them did well until they couldn't get hype anymore and they collapsed. There are different versions of tokens in crypto right now that you never can tell which will survive.

[zasad@]

Blockchain infrastructure provider like Alchemy and others are registered companies and their product is subscription based instead of open protocol, having token would be strange.

If we are to make a token or coin function as a true "currency" without having to wait for it to achieve a global level of trust, I believe they more deserve to have a utility token, as it functions as public infrastructure; holders could use the token directly to pay for service fees, rather than it serving merely as an object of speculation. So far, I’ve observed that many public infrastructure such as paid AI services, implement a non-transferable credit balance system. This means that the remaining money you deposited will stay there, regardless of whether you choose to use it or not.

Different jurisdictions may hold varying views regarding this token. If a project is intended for a local market, it is possible to examine the relevant legislation and issue a token; however, if the project is aimed at the global market, it is often simpler to forgo issuing a token and instead rely on established funding sources.

[wapwapwendy]

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.

The tricky part is how these projects would fund their development without selling tokens. Maybe relying on actual users and revenue would be a better test of whether the product is worth building.

[wapwapwendy]

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.

True, profit is a big motivation in both crypto and traditional markets. But I think there's a difference between investing in a company because its business is growing and buying a token mainly because you hope someone else will pay more for it.

[Peanutswar]

Right now token is the most common reward of the projects to the users but also you can change this into form of services, discounts and more perks so actually you can still get rewarded in just other way around now if I think I will benefit on that project without having the token still I will join in that project now if you think it does not help to your day to day use or even benefit at all and you can't seen a potential on this you can ignore the project and look for other. Sometimes people just look only for the money of the token and flip to make profit so still depends on the users' preferences.

[ultrloa]

Right now token is the most common reward of the projects to the users but also you can change this into form of services, discounts and more perks so actually you can still get rewarded in just other way around now if I think I will benefit on that project without having the token still I will join in that project now if you think it does not help to your day to day use or even benefit at all and you can't seen a potential on this you can ignore the project and look for other. Sometimes people just look only for the money of the token and flip to make profit so still depends on the users' preferences.

But don't look only on tokens, since usually those projects have that offering turn as scam.

So best to look at their infrastructure, if they are really useful to people. Since we can possibly tell that the project is doing good, especially if they focus providing service and ignore any possible disturbance what the tokens could bring in their project.

Right now I don't look for tokens to flip.

But I'd look for valuable platforms to use for my daily transaction needs.

[Johnlomape]

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.

The market is mainly influenced by hype and when a project is not ready to influence their product hype, this will affect the number of investors that should be holding the project. Getting investor to know about a project and invest in it is mostly trust based and the team need to be ready to increase the publicity of the project to investors to get informed about the project so they can invest if they have made their personal research before buying.

A project that does not have a token will end up not taken seriously until investors are able to see preparation for their token launch.
Not giving out airdrop or launching a presale can be one of the hindrance that can make the success of a project to be limited.

[aioc]

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.

The tricky part is how these projects would fund their development without selling tokens. Maybe relying on actual users and revenue would be a better test of whether the product is worth building.

Many of the projects I've seen concentrate their development on the token, on its marketing and listing and neglect the platform's use case, and they lose trust in the project once they see that the issued token has weak performance in the market, and because of this, they abandon and even report the project as a scam.

Projects are better off without a token, there are many ways to fund their project, like establishing partnerships and launching private funding. For a project to stay, it should have a clear use case, and development should focus on that use case to earn users' trust.

[asriloni]

The part about ignoring projects with active tokens but no real product makes sense. Too many people focus on the ticker and forget to check what they're actually investing in.

Honestly, product performance often gave impact to the price performance, but it can only happen when it can attract so many attention. Always remember the cycle people got attracted > they use the product >once they realize the product is good, and its token has utilities linked to the platform's product, then people start to speculating it. It's simple as that.

When a token still remain active while its product already sunsetted or underperform, the token itself becomes a pump and dump only. It's my reason to put it on ma ignore list.

There are plenties of actives token in the market, but their platform already shutdown, and those tokens are getting pump and dump only.

[henmark]

Honestly, product performance often gave impact to the price performance, but it can only happen when it can attract so many attention. Always remember the cycle people got attracted > they use the product >once they realize the product is good, and its token has utilities linked to the platform's product, then people start to speculating it. It's simple as that.

''Those who know, who knows'' or those who are not new in here and are serious, are aware with that fact. And it is not just 'often' but all the time, product performance utility is the driving force of a product or it is what keeps it alive when the hype was gone. Product performance is only a performance of a product and that performance can either be good or bad.

Product performance seems the same with price performance. It is price or how it performs, is our indication to tell if the product is doing well or not. We have two types of people/investor here. One is only in for the hype and the other is genuinely checking if the project is truly worthy. They or the second I said is only the one that use the product. While the other, is only holding it (not long) for potential profit. Both types can speculate but those who are in for hypes only and pick a meme coin, is literally the ones that speculate or invest in a speculative asset.

[Taskford]

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.

The tricky part is how these projects would fund their development without selling tokens. Maybe relying on actual users and revenue would be a better test of whether the product is worth building.

Many of the projects I've seen concentrate their development on the token, on its marketing and listing and neglect the platform's use case, and they lose trust in the project once they see that the issued token has weak performance in the market, and because of this, they abandon and even report the project as a scam.

Projects are better off without a token, there are many ways to fund their project, like establishing partnerships and launching private funding. For a project to stay, it should have a clear use case, and development should focus on that use case to earn users' trust.

Usually those projects concentrates all developments in their token are usually scam. This is common situation I'd see for past couple of years. then this is the reason why I try to avoid new launched project including those meme coins.

Actually they don't need to create a token, because they could earn some good stuffs. If they just exert and effort to do legal jobs.

Hard to tell if the project would stay. Since many scammers now tries to create drama, then make those people think that its easy to earn if they ride with those investment schemes. They are in wrong side if they listen or get curious with those risky projects.

[I_Anime]

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.

Firstly, it boils down to the kind of product their are building , if is actually something with good utility. Like i usually tell folks one of the  reason i am still in this space apart from the opportunity that comes with it is the fact that i am a big fan with the technology. Not to mention the option stuff that comes from decentralization, that’s why Bitcoin will always remain my number one cause is something that really stick to being decentralized. Some projects promote the concept of decentralization while still operating under a centralized system.

[Odusko]

Project tokens issuance can come with alot of things to consider, and the jurisdiction of the project service, I mean the host country and it regulations as regards to tokenize assets and what their monetary laws says about it, many times the chances that a project will attain such utility support token success, their need to work with regulations and at that could limit the tokens market presence and what true crypto tokens could achieve.

[Abu-Naim]

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.

To be honest with you, the main reason why so many people pay attention to crypto projects apart from Bitcoin is because of the profit they can make from the project, if the projects didn’t have a token in its name, then why do we call them crypto projects? I don’t they worth paying attention to unless if they have real life application that we can’t leave without.
Any crypto project we pay attention to must not give us their token in form of airdrops, once we notice how good the project can be, we can try to invest early so that we can make good profit from the investment.

[2stout]

Sure why not, it could be a protocol, L2 solutions, or whatever that contributes to the space.  For example, a defi platform.  Not all defi platforms have native tokens but a lot of these defi platforms have added value to both coins and tokens alike by providing liquidity.

[TastyChillySauce00]

If we are to make a token or coin function as a true "currency" without having to wait for it to achieve a global level of trust, I believe they more deserve to have a utility token, as it functions as public infrastructure; holders could use the token directly to pay for service fees, rather than it serving merely as an object of speculation. So far, I’ve observed that many public infrastructure such as paid AI services, implement a non-transferable credit balance system. This means that the remaining money you deposited will stay there, regardless of whether you choose to use it or not.

That's good idea, they could make economy out of their centralized infrastructure if they're willing. I could imagine having left over AI credit balance that I could sell and convert it back to money again, I think we already have that kind of system but for computing like IO and RNDR and they are still going strong till this day.

I do think the main reason those infra providers don't want to release token is because they want to focus on making big revenue and don't want the user to be able to withdraw their money from their infrastructure which resulted in less usage. They simply want user to keep using their services until there is no credit left.

[libert19]

I used to use Uniswap exchange before it launched it's token, just because it was much better dex than the orderbook based dexes that existed prior (Etherdelta/Forkdelta, Idex) — this did allow me to get their retrospective airdrop but it wasn't plan, iirc it was the one that started retrospective airdrop trend, so you wouldn't have been able to plan anyhow.

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.

Competent product is what counts with or without token.

[boyptc]

That is better if they have a token and yet they have a meaningful purpose and usage in the community. If there are projects that have tools that can help users in the community, we like it even more.

But that's where the question starts from these users if they'll have some potential creation of token to fund more of their project.

So, we can see how the transition goes for these projects when they lack of funding. The solution for them is to launch their own token which could give them more funds to operate.

The good examples of those without tokens are the scanners, news websites, what else can we think of what are the useful ones that doesn't need token?