Do token unlocks push crypto prices down?
Not by much, as far as our data can tell. Across vesting tokens with perpetual futures from 2021 to September 2026, prices fell about 2% more than a placebo in the 30 days before unlocks of at least 1% of supply — a third of the size reported in industry studies and not distinguishable from noise. Large unlocks of 5% or more looked worse, about −6%, but not reliably.
The claim
Market maker Keyrock studied about 16,000 unlock events and reported that roughly 90% put negative pressure on prices, that declines start up to 30 days before the unlock, that team unlocks do the most damage and that prices settle about two weeks afterwards. Unlock calendars have since become a standard tool, and “sell before the unlock” a standard piece of advice. The headline figures are averages, reported without tests of significance.
What we tested
We matched perpetual futures of tokens with vesting schedules to unlock calendars as they were known at the time, reconstructed from the version history of a public unlock database — trackers revise past schedules after the fact. Daily data, January 2021 to September 2026. The main test compares returns in the 30 days before unlocks of at least 1% of supply with a placebo that moves each token’s schedule to random dates at the same token age, so ordinary young-token drift is not mistaken for an unlock effect.
Result
Before unlocks, tokens did about 2% worse than the placebo over 30 days: the expected sign, a third of the reported size and within noise. With today’s revised schedules in place of point-in-time ones the gap disappears (+0.1%). Two hints did not survive the 32 variants we tried: the last week before an unlock (about −1%) and large unlocks of 5% or more (about −6% over 30 days). A rule that shorted tokens ahead of unlocks and held quiet ones earned a Sharpe ratio of 0.53 after costs, but random schedules alone produced 0.26 ± 0.40.
Returns around unlocks versus a placebo with random schedules, 2021 – 2026
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| 30 days before unlocks of 1%+ of supply | ≈ −2%, within noise |
| Same, using today’s revised schedules | +0.1% |
| Last week before an unlock | ≈ −1%, not reliable |
| 30 days before unlocks of 5%+ | ≈ −6%, not reliable |
| Short-before-unlock rule, Sharpe after costs | 0.53 vs 0.26 ± 0.40 placebo |
What it means
Unlocks may weigh on prices a little, but the large published averages do not survive a fair comparison in our data. Much of what looks like an unlock effect is the drift any young token shows at that age, and schedules revised after the fact make the history look cleaner than it was.
What would change the verdict
The test can only detect effects of about 6% over 30 days, so a smaller effect is not ruled out. An unlock calendar recorded day by day from now on, or coverage of many more tokens, would give it the power it lacks.
This note re-tests a claim made by the cited authors on our own crypto market data; the summary of their method is ours. Tested · published · last reviewed . Research, not investment advice.