The Unlock Ledger — Reading a Vesting Schedule Like the Desk Does

The Unlock Ledger, No. 001 · 16 July 2026. Informational only — not investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation.

Every public unlock calendar answers one question: when. That is the least interesting column on the page. Price doesn’t move because tokens unlock; it moves because a specific holder, with a specific cost basis and a specific mandate, meets a specific amount of liquidity. The desk reads a vesting schedule the way a credit analyst reads a maturity wall — and most of what matters is not in the calendar.

The denominator trick

The first number in any unlock headline — “only 2% of supply” — is usually quoted against total supply. The desk re-quotes it against circulating float and against average daily volume on venues with real depth. A tranche that is 2% of total supply can be 15% of float and six days of honest volume. Same event, three different sizes. Whoever picked the denominator picked your conclusion.

The three shapes

Cliffs concentrate decision-making: one date, one coordination problem, one price. Linear drips look gentler but arm a persistent seller who never has to explain themselves. Tapering schedules front-load relief and back-load complacency — the market stops watching precisely when the marginal tranche starts hitting thinner books. None of the shapes is good or bad. Each one tells you when the schedule’s designers expected attention to fade.

Who is inside the tranche

A tranche of early-investor tokens with a 40x paper multiple behaves differently from a team tranche with four more years of vesting behind it. Before the desk scores a schedule it maps each tranche to its holders: team, early rounds, treasury, foundation, market-makers, community programs — and, where wallets are labeled, checks the deck’s claims against the chain. The question is never “how much unlocks” but “who gets the option to sell, and what do we know about how they behave when options appear.”

The side agreements

The flags on our fictional memo exist because this is where real deals sink. Market-maker loans with undisclosed call options, forward sales by early holders, OTC deals settled off-calendar — all of these change the effective schedule without touching the published one. A vesting page can be perfectly accurate and completely misleading at once. The desk treats the published calendar as a claim to verify, not a fact to cite.

A worked example — Project Basalt (fictional)

The file from our homepage, in ledger form. Every number is invented, for illustration only.

Window	Tranche	% of total supply	% of float at window	Holder	Shape
Month 3	Early backers I	6%	31%	Seed round	Cliff
Months 4–9	Early backers II	22%	tapering	Series A	Linear
Month 9	Team + advisors	18%	54%	Internal	Cliff
Months 9–12	Ecosystem fund	22%	drip	Foundation	Linear

Sixty-eight percent of supply inside nine months, with the largest cliff landing exactly when the linear drip has already exhausted the patient buyers. Add the market-maker loan whose call option we flagged, and the effective sell pressure at month nine exceeds anything the published calendar admits. That schedule earned its verdict.

The Ledger

The desk maintains a monitored unlock ledger — float-adjusted, holder-mapped, side-agreement-aware — for active mandates. A public snapshot ships monthly with the Brief. If you allocate and want the next one in your inbox, subscribe to the Brief. If a specific schedule is keeping you up at night, send the file.

---

Research is informational only. Project Basalt is fictional; all figures in the worked example are illustrative. Nothing here is investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation.