不过，SOL 在 3 年内就上线了， 不同于一家典型公司通常需要 7–10 年建设后才 IPO。 一个新网络中的信息不对称非常显著。 为了说明清楚： 我认为，解锁所有投资人的代币，比解锁员工/创始人的代币更说得过去。但即便对 VC 而言，锁仓（vesting）仍然是好事。 这里是多数人理解错的关键： 很多人简单地认为， 代币市场的目标就是“让 VC 尽快卖完”， 这样他们‘早点卖掉早点结束’， 然后代币就能落入真正的长期持有者手中， 价格才会稳定。 这是完全错误的思维模型。 代币根本不在乎持有人是 VC、散户，还是其他人。 因为： 只要买入的人，未来都会卖。 无论是散户还是 VC。 每个人最终都会卖——只是 VC 更容易被识别，因为有名字。 但从市场角度看： VC vs 散户 = 没区别。 所以请从你的大脑中删除“VC 卖给散户”的那套循环逻辑。 正确的理解方式：代币 = 一系列“持有周期”（holding periods） 作为代币项目方，你要做的是：延长每一位持有人的持有周期。 每一枚代币都有自己的“下一次卖出”时间点。 当一次卖出发生时，就会在订单簿中出现卖单， 从而推低价格。 你的终极目标是：延长每一个持有周期，而不仅是阻止 VC 卖。 即便 VC 卖了之后，代币仍会不断易手 —— 伴随着后续的一连串卖出。 这就是为什么“延长第一个持有周期（通过锁仓）是好事”。 你需要这个长持有周期。 你需要每一段都尽可能拉长。 代币价格的本质是：所有被拉长的持有周期（每段持有都会延后一笔卖出）vs 所有你在期间能创造出的新增买盘之间的结果。 因此，不，你不想让第一批代币马上被加速出售。那等于你在主动切断第一段持有周期。别再用那种“VC 卖完之后，代币就会变好”的逻辑来理解市场，它太幼稚，也完全错误。 那些没有 VC 卖压、VC 早已退出、甚至“公平发行（fair launch）”的代币，在本轮市场的表现并没有什么本质差异。 市场把错误的教训当成正确理论，形成了错误的市场认知模型。 Except $SOL went live within 3 years, unlike a typical company IPO which typically happens after 7-10 years of building. The asymmetry of information in a new network is significant. I think unlocking all investors is more defensible than locking employees/founders, to be clear. But even for VCs, vesting is good. Here's what I think most people are getting wrong here: there's a simple perception that the goal of a token market is to get the VCs to sell as fast as possible, to "get it out of the way," under the perception that once they sell, it'll get into the hands of the actual long-term holder and then there will be true price stability. This is a wrong mental model. Tokens do not care whether they are in the hands of VCs or retail or whoever else. Because whoever buys the tokens from a VC will also eventually sell the token. *Everyone* eventually sells their tokens, retail and VCs the same. VCs are just easy to identify because they have names. But from the perspective of the market, there is no difference. Remove the VC => retail rotation from your mind. The correct way to model the token is a series of holding periods. You, the token founder, are trying to elongate those holding periods. Each token has a holding period before its next sold, and then the sell shows up as a sell order on an order book, pushing the price lower. Your goal is to elongate *each* holding period. Even after the VC sells, there is still a sequence of other sells after it, as the token keeps changing hands. Elongating the first holding period, via vesting, is GOOD. You want that. You want to elongate *every* holding period. The price is ultimately the summation of all of those holding periods (which end in sales), subtracted from all the buys that you can induce in between. That is why, no, you do not want to immediately accelerate the first tranche of selling. You're basically cutting off the first holding period. Stop thinking of tokens as "once the VCs stop selling then finally the token will do well." That is too simplistic and just wrong. Tokens where no VCs are selling or where the VCs are already out (or were fair launched) have performed similarly in this market. People have taken away the wrong lesson and an incorrect mental model of markets.