in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens. First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply. I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens. This was my advisors thinking. In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency. So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token. But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.
So what do you all think about this two token theory?
Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.