我在 2017 年刚开始投资加密货币时，行业的常态是：所有人都没有锁仓。对投资人、创始人、员工都是一样，所有代币都会立即流通。 这个行业规范是在 2018 年 ICO 崩盘后 才被迫改变的，因为当时这种做法导致太多不良行为和极端短视。 团队会立即抛售代币，没有动力继续建设； 投资人根本不相信项目长期价值，只求短期套利。 这些都让资本市场变得畸形，激励机制完全被扭曲。 如今仍然有一些项目锁仓期极短，甚至完全不锁。 但它们几乎总是彻头彻尾的骗局。 我记得 2017 年有个当时非常火的代币创业公司在招我。他们给员工发的 Token Grant 也是零锁仓。我问他们：“没有锁仓的话，员工不会争相抛售吗？团队有什么动力长期持有？” 他们一本正经地回答我：“我们不需要强迫你持有，因为只有白痴才会卖掉这个项目的代币。卖掉本身就是惩罚。” （这个项目在 2018 年崩盘了，我听说团队成员赚了上百万。） 锁仓（vesting）是创业界非常古老的机制。世界各地的初创公司都在做，这并不是加密行业的独创。 它能强化长期一致性（long-term alignment），抑制短期投机。 Solana 当时的锁仓可能异常地短（或许因为当时市场条件、投资者议价权？）。但后来当他们拥有议价能力时，他们甚至强制二级市场“已流动的销售”也要锁仓。否则你以为 FTX 财产清算团队的 SOL 怎么会有那么多“多年份锁仓”的？ 这里还有一个“归纳论证”：所有人都知道 99 年锁仓是好事 —— 那几乎等于把代币从流通里移除。98 年也很不错，97、96、95……一直到 1 年锁仓。不存在一个“神奇的临界点”，会在“一年锁仓 + 四年归属”突然变差，而零锁仓反而更好。锁仓在整个区间都是正价值。 所以，不，所有代币立即解锁是一个糟糕的想法。 外界有个流行说法，说员工、VC 在代币发行中“收割散户”。 但如今多数情况下这是胡扯，因为代币上线后涨跌，通常都发生在一年 cliff 之前（除非个别团队恶意违背锁仓）。 相反，如果员工与 VC 能在上线第一天就立即砸盘、每次上线都可以砸零售投资者，你难道看不到那会更糟糕吗？ IPO 市场都能承受员工和投资人锁定期（lock-up）。 那代币也应当能承受。 IPO 本质上就是巨大的所有权更替事件。 正如另一个人说的（找不到那条推了）： IPO 银行家不会纠结“怎样阻止卖家”——那是失败者的心态。 他们关注的是“怎样找到买家”。如果买家不出现，那应该被指责的是资产本身，而不是锁仓机制。 This is ahistorical nonsense. When I first started investing in crypto in 2017, the norm was no vesting for anyone. For investors, founders, employees, all tokens circulated immediately. This norm was changed after the 2018 ICO collapse because it was led to so much bad behavior and short-terism. Having teams immediately dump their tokens and have no incentive to continue on building, attracting investors who didn't actually believe in the long-term prospects of the token, all of that led to broken capital markets and warped incentives. There are still projects that have extremely short lockups, or sometimes even no lockups. They're almost always complete scams. I remember in 2017 I was being recruited to a then-prominent token startup. They had no vesting on the token grants for employees. I asked: Won't that make employees race to dump? What's going to actually incentivize the team to hold onto their tokens? Their answer, straight-faced: we don't need to force you to hold. Because only an idiot would dump the tokens of this project. Dumping is its own punishment. (The project collapsed in 2018, and I heard the team made millions.) Vesting is a really old idea in startups. Startups everywhere do it. It's not a crypto thing. It forces long-term alignment and discourages quick flips. Solana may have had an atypically short lockup (one wonders if this was because of market conditions, investor leverage?). But later, when they had the leverage, they forced lockups on LIQUID sales. How do you think the FTX estate ended up with so much MULTI-YEAR locked SOL? There's also an inductive argument here. Everyone realizes a 99-year lockup on someone is great—that's basically removing those tokens from circulation. A 98-year lockup is slightly less good, but still good. Same with 97, 96, 95-->all the way to 1 year lockups. There is no kink in this function that somehow magically at 1 year lockup 4 year vest, 0 lockup is somehow better. Lockups are good all the way down. So no, unlocking all tokens immediately is a bad idea. There's a trope out there that employees, VCs are fucking over retail on these token launches. Today, that's mostly BS, because token launches do well or poorly well before the 1-year cliff (barring a few unscrupulous teams that break lockups). But if employees and VCs *can* immediately dump on retail, on every launch, do you not see how much worse that is? If IPO markets can handle employee and investor lockups, tokens should be able to handle them as well. All IPOs are gigantic ownership turnover events; as someone else put it (can't find the tweet), IPO bankers don't fixate on stopping sellers—that's a loser's mentality. They focus on finding buyers. If the buyers don't show up, then the asset should rightly take the blame, not the vesting schedules.