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?
it will instead make the use of the tokens inefficient, fees for transfers, especially if there will be a swap program in the future. People's interest will also be divided into focus, they are confused whether to trade using token A or B ? and finally, your token volume trading will be small