Quote from: -DEVX- on March 15, 2018, 08:31:31 PM

Quote from: ganeshramk on March 15, 2018, 08:24:20 PM

Quote from: -DEVX- on March 15, 2018, 08:17:02 PM

Quote from: ibininja on March 15, 2018, 11:26:39 AM

Quote from: -DEVX- on March 15, 2018, 04:10:56 AM

Quote from: Sozialtourist on March 14, 2018, 07:10:47 PM

Quote from: Gunny95 on March 14, 2018, 06:34:07 PM

What will happen with the unsold tokens? will they be burned or not even minted in the first place?

Good question. I didn't find anything about it in their Whitepaper and there is also no answer on Telegram, yet. I just hope that unsold tokens will be burned and not used for a second round of an ICO like other projects do.

They will be not minted.

We don't believe in burning. It is not the safest way for the investors of the ICO projects.

I think "not minting/minting" must be the way for all ICO's. More professional and safe for investors.

All the best
Aytunc
Developeo CEO

I think in many occassions the burning would be to ensure successful ICO; so basically when a minimum is reached whatever is raised afterwards would be burned. Unlike when you set a hard cap and you close your sale around the hard cap. I understand your point of view but might disagree in that burning is not safe (assuming the developers stick to their word and actually provide proof of burn).

Unfortunately, there are both good and bad sides of the ICO's, as regulations are very shallow right now. We are not supporting regulations that much but still when there is an investment, if investors need to "assume", this is already a risk.

I totally understand you, but what happens to your investments if they say they will burn but not burn it?

With minting, you are already pre-burning actually. Hardcap is still there, but if the hardcap is not reached, contract is not even minting the unsolds, so, there is already no need for burning and assumptions or trust.

I don't understand why you are saying regulations are not interesting for you. Regulations are for the benefit of investors mainly. Investments are for risks. But its not definitely 100% risk. Risk should be balanced in my opinion. IN that sense, regulations are good for the survival of whole ICO community.

No, what i say is regulations/safety are needed. I think you got it wrong.

And as the reguations are very shallow right now, minting must be the way instead of burning. (because burning = assumptions)

What i meant there was decentralization > centralization, but we need "thought-througly" kind of regulations. Currently there are "many", but weak and complex. And everyone is turning around of it. Bec. they are very very shallow. It can be less or more but needs to be detailed and very particular, so both investors and ico's will be more safe.

I also understood your previous statement wrongly. But now it is clear what you meant. Still I don't understand the meaning of burning tokens. Each and every person does it in different manner. I like the approach of minting which is followed by good ICOs off-late.