A token unlock chart looks precise: dates, percentages and categories of holders. Its precision can conceal unanswered questions. What becomes available on each date? Can a holder transfer a beneficial interest before release? Who can change the schedule? An institutional investor should reconcile the chart to the agreements and deployed controls before treating it as a supply forecast.
OpenZeppelin's finance documentation provides a concrete reference for vesting wallets, linear schedules and cliff extensions. It also notes that ownership of its ownable vesting wallet can be transferred. Those details demonstrate why the phrase locked tokens does not establish every restriction an investor may assume.
Separate vesting from transfer restrictions
Vesting describes when an entitlement accrues or becomes releasable under the relevant arrangement. A lockup describes restrictions on transferring or disposing of an interest. They can run on different timetables and have different enforcement mechanisms. Read both, including any restrictions on indirect transfers or economic hedging.
The LexDAO token warrant example includes restrictions on certain transfers and economic arrangements involving locked tokens, alongside provisions for network participation. That is evidence of one drafting approach. It does not establish that a project's founders, employees and investors all face the same restrictions, or that a restriction is enforced by its smart contracts.
Reconstruct the supply schedule
Build the unlock model from signed allocations and actual vesting arrangements. Identify the denominator, the supply categories and amounts already released. Separate treasury holdings, future grants, investor rights and tokens held in contracts. Avoid silently counting the same allocation in more than one category.
For a hypothetical model, distinguish tokens scheduled to become claimable from tokens actually claimed and from tokens transferred to a market venue. Those states are useful for different questions. An unlock date can change what a holder may access without proving that the holder will sell. The chart should describe availability rather than present a deterministic price prediction.
Inspect the deployed controls
Identify the actual contract, network, beneficiary and schedule parameters. Determine whether it can be upgraded, whether administrators can withdraw tokens and whether a separate agreement governs recipient changes. Comparing source code with a general library example is insufficient without confirming the deployed implementation and permissions.
OpenZeppelin's documentation notes that assets added after a vesting schedule begins follow that schedule as though they had been present from the start, potentially making part immediately releasable. A funding team should therefore test top-ups and allocation corrections against the actual implementation. A later deposit does not necessarily start a fresh vesting period.
Examine beneficial-interest transfers
A contract can prevent the underlying tokens from leaving while allowing control of the receiving wallet to change. OpenZeppelin specifically notes ownership-transfer implications for its ownable vesting wallet. Institutions should check whether the commercial agreement separately restricts such transfers and how compliance would be monitored.
Other arrangements may permit pledging, staking or delegation while restricting outright sales. Document which activities are allowed and what they mean for exposure. Tokens subject to a release schedule can still carry governance or credit implications depending on the implementation. Our article on token launches and distribution provides the broader context for these rights.
Define amendments and reporting
The investor should know who can accelerate, extend or waive a restriction and whether consent is required. A change affecting one holder category can alter the supply assumptions of everyone else. Ask for an amendment register and reconcile it to the public schedule rather than relying on a static graphic produced at fundraising.
Reporting should show changes, exceptions and the evidence behind them. Material differences between the documented allocation and observed contract balances need explanation. Where allocations remain offchain or unfunded, describe those limits rather than imply that every promised restriction is technically enforced.
Test the fundraising claim
An investment committee should receive a schedule with definitions, a contract and permissions map, and a comparison against the signed documents. Include uncertainty about future grants, permitted transfers and amendment powers. That gives the committee a basis for evaluating dilution and access without confusing an attractive chart with a complete control system.
For a venture-investor context in the archive, see Andy Tang's speaker profile. The useful diligence outcome is a reconciled account of what each holder can receive and do, on which dates and under whose authority. That is more informative than a headline claim that a percentage of supply is locked.