An unlock creates eligibility to move tokens; it is not proof they have been sold.
Understand the release mechanism
A vesting arrangement defines when a beneficiary can access an allocation. A cliff can release an amount after a waiting period; a linear schedule releases progressively. OpenZeppelin’s VestingWallet is one implementation, not a universal standard for every project. Read the deployed contract and its actual parameters rather than assuming a calendar graphic captures all transfer or ownership rights.
Work through a fictional schedule
Suppose 1.2 million tokens vest evenly over twelve months, ignoring timestamp rounding for this example. That suggests 100,000 becoming eligible each month. A different arrangement could release the entire allocation after twelve months. Both can be marketed as “one-year vesting”, yet their availability profiles differ substantially. A useful calendar specifies the rule rather than relying on that shorthand.
Distinguish four events
Allocation, eligibility, claim and sale are separate events. A beneficiary may leave eligible tokens unclaimed, claim them into another wallet, or transfer them without using an exchange. On-chain observation can establish transfers, but attributing a recipient or economic purpose may require additional evidence. Do not label every movement a market sale simply because it occurs near an expected unlock date.
A practical review sheet
Record the beneficiary, contract address, start, duration, cliff if any, token amount, revocation rights and ownership-transfer rules. Compare the amount becoming eligible with circulating supply and executable depth, using matching dates. This identifies an exposure to investigate; it is not a price forecast. If the project only supplies a promise and no enforceable mechanism, describe the schedule as a stated policy rather than a verified lock.
Sources & further reading
Sources checked 7 October 2026. Source-linked explanatory content; not personalised investment advice. Found an error? Request a correction.
