Key findings
- An unlock changes transfer restrictions; it does not record a market sale.
- Distinguish scheduled supply, claim transfers, exchange deposits and actual execution.
- Market depth and execution speed are more relevant to impact than turnover alone.
When an unlock becomes an assumed sale
An unlock calendar is a starting point, not a market-order record. Treating every scheduled token as immediate selling omits recipients’ choices and execution routes. Eligibility to claim, actual receipt, transfer and sale can occur at different times.
Economic interests may change through off-market claims before an unlock. OpenZeppelin notes that transferable VestingWallet ownership can permit the sale of rights to unvested tokens. This demonstrates a distinction between contractual locks and economic exposure; it is not evidence that every project uses that arrangement. [1]
| Stage | Evidence | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|
| Total supply | Issuance rules and current supply | Immediate tradability |
| Scheduled release | Allocation and vesting documents | Intent to sell |
| Transferability | Contract and account permissions | Actual market inflow |
| Exchange transfer | Addresses, labels and deposits | Executed sale |
| Sale execution | Trades or disclosed execution | Identical behavior by other recipients |
CBK evidence taxonomy. Address attribution and exchange-transfer labels can be uncertain.
One unlock, different liquidity demands
For 10 million transferable tokens, an 80% claim rate, 10% selling-choice rate and 50% execution share imply 400,000 tokens in the selected market. A 30% selling-choice rate instead implies 1.2 million. The difference comes from behavioral assumptions, not calendar accuracy.
Dividing these amounts by average daily volume does not estimate price impact. Volume can include repeated trading of the same inventory; depth varies by time and price band. Execution speed, order type and opposing demand also matter.
10 million × 80% claimed × selling-choice rate × 50% executed in the selected market. Scenarios, not observations or forecasts.
Rules for interpreting on-chain movement
A transfer to an address labeled as an exchange can make a sale possible without proving one. Custody, collateral, internal transfers and liquidity provision remain possible explanations. Address ownership and economic purpose are separate uncertainties.
Visa’s on-chain methodology illustrates the use of labels and filters to estimate economic activity. Stablecoin-transfer analysis differs from unlock analysis, but the measurement lesson carries across: a visible record does not make intent fully observable. [2]
Before calling a price move an unlock effect
A decline after an unlock may coincide with market weakness, project news or liquidity changes. A public schedule can also be anticipated before the event. An event-day window alone can miss when the adjustment happened.
Predefine the observation window and compare market and similar-asset movements. Imperfect comparators still limit causal inference. Present observed prices and flows first, with causal explanations as separate hypotheses.
| Observation | Alternative | Further evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Price decline | Broad market movement | Market and comparable-asset trends |
| Exchange deposit | Custody or collateral | Execution records or public explanation |
| Volume spike | Repeated trading and counter-demand | Order depth and execution timing |
CBK analysis. This is an analytical framework, not observed customer performance or a market benchmark.
What project communications should establish
Provide consistent recipient categories, vesting conditions, release schedules and circulating-supply definitions. Conflicting definitions can turn an ordinary change into a trust problem. Preserve explanations and dates for revisions rather than silently replacing old disclosures.
Investors can price in known schedules. Consequently, a calendar alone cannot identify the cause of returns before or after an unlock. This paper defines evidence boundaries and supply scenarios rather than predicting direction.
Scope & limitations
No individual project wallets or trades were traced. This is not a price forecast or trading strategy. The vesting implementation is an example, not a statement about any token’s contract. All numerical scenarios are hypothetical.
CryptoBridge Korea analysis based on public materials. Source facts are distinguished from interpretation and hypothetical calculations. References to organizations or projects do not imply their sponsorship or review of this paper.
Sources & scope
- OpenZeppelin Contracts, VestingWallet ↗General vesting implementation, not any specific project’s actual lockup terms.
- Visa Onchain Analytics, Stablecoin Transactions methodology ↗Adjusted volume is not automatically commercial-payment volume; address labels include estimates.