Login

I’m trying to finalize the tokenomics for a new project, and I’m stuck on how to structure the initial distribution to avoid a massive dump at TGE. I’ve seen so many projects fail because early backers and team allocations flood the market immediately. What’s a realistic vesting schedule that actually aligns long-term incentives without scaring off early contributors?

From our launch we kept most tokens locked at TGE and used a longer vesting curve. Core team got a four year schedule with a one year cliff. After the cliff tokens unlock monthly, about one thirty sixth of the total each month for the next thirty six months finishing at year four. Private backers were given a twelve month cliff then linear vesting over the next twenty four months. Advisors followed a similar rhythm but with a shorter horizon. It reduced early selling pressure but it did slow hiring and momentum a bit.

As an early backer the one year cliff felt okay if there is a credible path to liquidity later. The risk is overhang from big private sale pockets that unlock at once so we preferred smaller staggered unlocks and no big dump at listing. Some teams I have watched offered a tiny initial unlock at TGE five to ten percent for strategic contributors but that can set expectations for more dumps down the road.

Maybe the whole problem is not the vesting math. If the product has not shipped or the market is not hungry dumps happen anyway. I have seen schedules that look solid on paper but price pressure from hype cycles kills it. It is easy to blame the schedule harder to fix product market fit.

One attempt we tried briefly was linear vesting after a modest cliff plus a reserve pool that unlocks only after milestones. The reserve gave a price floor during a pullback but it did not move the needle on user growth. We left the reserve in place but with a cap and learned that the rhythm of release matters more than the exact percentages.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me