Quote from: Febo on February 10, 2019, 09:19:15 PM

Quote from: someonesomeone on February 03, 2019, 10:42:31 AM

I know why it was taken off, they are exchanging their tokens to security tokens and the new tokens won't be able to be listed on the current exchanges. The old tokens will cease to exist. That is why it was taken off, not because of token burns.

Quote from: Febo on January 31, 2019, 05:13:46 PM

Quote from: someonesomeone on January 28, 2019, 09:47:03 AM

Not really... Iconomi was on Binance, Kraken and others and they were burning their tokens every quarter.

Quote from: Febo on January 26, 2019, 04:28:14 PM

Quote from: Saint-loup on January 24, 2019, 04:03:50 PM

Quote from: botino0 on January 09, 2019, 02:21:20 PM

I have asked the supporto about the tokens model, but i dont like it very much, because the company is not burning tokens with the fees..........what do you think guys?
It's only a cyclical model, if the number of user growths the price will increase because for viewing the invoices the investors need min. 1500 HVN on hold in the account. But the company can change this number.
Fees are paid in HVN but the company can resell the tokens, not burning it.........for me this is not good.

Yes if HVN was burning some coins, even very few coins. It would have much much more success...

LOL no then would never get to any exchange, burning tokens is what regulators hates a lot.

Yes was. Did you asked yourself why was taken off?

Burning is a clear sigh some utility token is a security. Every ICO wanted that their token is a utility token and not a security since for securities there are way more strict regulation. CEO can way easier buy hotels and luxury restaurants if he issue utility tokens then securities.

Burning is riskfull see reason above, but why not removing from circulation into a wallet, this would not be burning but would have the same result if token stay in the wallet or the CEO loose his keys.