The Short Answer
For anything your holders will read as a commitment, use time-based unlocks. Fixed dates and continuous linear release are verifiable by anyone in seconds, depend on nothing outside the blockchain, and do not publish the price at which your insider supply becomes sellable.
StakePoint is the strongest choice for time-based schedules on Solana. Cliff periods with continuous per-second release, permanent by default so nobody including us can cancel them, full Token-2022 support including transfer tax and reflection tokens, and a public page for every schedule that anyone can check without connecting a wallet.
Conditional models have a place, and this post covers where. But it is a narrower place than the marketing around them suggests.
Create a Vesting Schedule
Cliff and continuous release · Permanent by default
The Four Unlock Models
Time-Based: Cliff and Linear
Tokens release according to a clock. A cliff holds everything until a date, then releases what has accrued. Linear release continues from there until the schedule completes.
The standard for founding allocations is a twelve month cliff followed by three to four years of linear release, inherited from equity vesting where it matches a typical employment horizon.
Within time-based there is an important distinction. Continuous release unlocks every second, so supply enters smoothly and there is no visible unlock date to trade around. Periodic release unlocks in chunks, monthly or quarterly, which recreates the supply event the schedule was meant to spread out.
StakePoint uses continuous release. A beneficiary can claim at any moment and receive exactly what has accrued to that second.
Supported by: every major platform, though continuous rather than periodic release varies.
Graded
Tokens release in defined tranches. A quarter every six months rather than a steady flow.
Graded schedules concentrate supply into discrete events, which is generally a disadvantage. Quarterly unlocks create larger periodic sell pressure than monthly, and monthly creates more than continuous.
Supported by: Streamflow, Magna, Jupiter Lock.
Milestone-Based
Tokens release when a project achievement is reached. Mainnet launch, a TVL target, a user count.
Compelling in principle, awkward in practice, because someone has to determine whether the condition was met. That is either an oracle reading off-chain data, which introduces a dependency, or a manual attestation, which introduces a trusted party. Either way the unlock stops being purely mechanical and the holder has something new to trust.
Supported by: Streamflow, Magna.
Price-Based
Tokens release when the market price reaches a target set at creation, monitored through a price feed.
The argument is that date-based unlocks land whenever they land, including in bad conditions, so conditioning release on price means supply only expands when the market is strong enough to absorb it.
Supported by: Streamflow.
Platform Comparison
| StakePoint | Streamflow | Magna | Jupiter Lock | Smithii | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cliff | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Continuous linear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Graded | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Milestone | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Price-based | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Token-2022 with tax | Full | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial |
| Public explorer | Yes | Yes | Claim portals | Yes | Limited |
| Permanent by default | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Solana-only focus | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
Feature sets change. Check each platform directly before committing an allocation.
Why Time-Based Wins for Most Projects
It Says the Right Thing
A team locking until a date says: we are not selling before then, regardless of what happens.
A team locking until a price says: we sell when the price reaches this level.
Both may be reasonable positions. Only one reads as a commitment. The second publishes an exit level in advance, and holders who see it know exactly where a block of insider supply becomes sellable.
It Does Not Create the Sell-Off It Was Meant to Avoid
A known price trigger tends to act as a ceiling.
As the price approaches the target, participants tracking the schedule know supply is about to expand. Some sell before it. The unlock then fires into a market already softening from that anticipation, arriving precisely when the buying that drove the price there has exhausted itself.
Fixed dates are also known in advance, which is a fair objection. The difference is correlation. A date is uncorrelated with market conditions. A price trigger is correlated by definition, and fires at the local high the market just made.
There is precedent for the underlying lesson. After Pi Network's first major unlock hit the price in mid-2024, the team announced a six month vesting pause covering investors, team, advisors and treasury. The pause relieved the calendar but not the market, and the token's subsequent performance became a case study in the fact that rescheduling supply does not manufacture demand.
Conditional unlocks pull the same lever from a different angle. They change when supply arrives. They do not change whether anyone wants it.
It Treats Every Holder the Same
Sophisticated participants track unlock schedules. For high-profile tokens, unlock analysis now happens wallet by wallet rather than date by date. They know where a trigger sits, they watch the approach, and they are positioned before it fires.
Someone who bought because they liked the project and does not read unlock trackers is not. They see the price rising, buy into strength, and the unlock lands on them.
A fixed date is on the calendar, identical for every holder, and arrives whether the chart is up or down. A price trigger concentrates the disadvantage on the people least equipped to anticipate it.
It Is Verifiable Without Trusting Anyone
A fixed-date schedule is verifiable by anyone with a block explorer. The timestamp is in the account data and there is nothing to dispute.
A price-based unlock depends on a price feed, a monitoring service and a definition of which price counts. Which oracle. Which venue. What happens during a wick, a feed outage, or a period of thin liquidity where the price briefly touches the target on minimal volume.
None of that is unsolvable, and platforms offering it have answers. But every answer is another thing a holder accepts on trust, and removing the need for trust was the point of putting the schedule on-chain in the first place.
The Tokens Actually Release
If a price target is never reached, the tokens stay locked indefinitely. On an immutable contract there is no mechanism to revise it.
Teams setting ambitious targets during optimistic periods can find allocations permanently stranded. A fixed date always arrives.
What StakePoint Does Differently
Continuous release, not monthly tranches. Tokens unlock every second between the cliff and the end date. There is no monthly unlock event for the market to trade around, and a beneficiary claiming at any moment receives exactly what has accrued.
Permanent by default. Schedules cannot be cancelled by anyone, including StakePoint, unless the creator explicitly enables cancellation at creation. Every schedule displays which type it is publicly. On most platforms cancellability is a buried setting and holders cannot tell what they are looking at.
Full Token-2022 support. Transfer taxes, reflection mechanics and custom extensions all handled correctly. The vault balance is read after transfer rather than assumed, so tax tokens vest accurately. This is where several platforms quietly fall short, and it covers tokens from every major Solana launchpad.
A public explorer, not a dashboard. Every schedule has its own page showing token, amount, beneficiary, cliff, duration, vested and claimed amounts, live. No wallet connection required to view it. A schedule your holders cannot check independently is doing half its job.
Locking, vesting and staking in one place. Vest team allocations, lock LP, run a staking pool, all from one interface with one explorer for holders to check. Most projects need all three.
How StakePoint Vesting Works
Cliffs · Continuous release · Full Token-2022
Where Conditional Unlocks Genuinely Fit
The case is real but narrow.
Treasury allocations with no public signalling role. If tokens are earmarked for operations rather than published as proof, gating release on performance is sensible treasury management and nobody reads it as a promise.
Grant structures where the condition is contractual. Some agreements legitimately tie release to a deliverable, and a milestone unlock encodes what was already agreed.
Projects that accept the tokens may never release. If a permanently locked allocation is acceptable, the main downside disappears.
What those share is that none of them is the case most projects reach for a schedule to solve.
How to Choose
If the schedule is a public commitment, use time-based with continuous release. Unambiguous, verifiable by anyone, and it does not announce your exit level. Create one on StakePoint.
If you are worried about an unlock landing badly, extend the duration rather than adding conditions. A longer schedule reduces the significance of any single date far more effectively than a price trigger, and costs nothing in verifiability.
If your token has a transfer tax or reflection mechanic, check the platform handles Token-2022 extensions properly before committing an allocation. Support is not universal and the failure mode is silent.
If a contract genuinely ties release to a deliverable, a milestone unlock encodes what was agreed. Just be clear that the oracle or attestor is now part of your trust model.
If you are distributing to hundreds of recipients from a spreadsheet, bulk creation becomes the deciding feature and Streamflow is the stronger tool at that scale.
Common Questions
What is the difference between time-based and price-based token unlocks?
Time-based unlocks release tokens on a schedule, either at a cliff date or continuously across a period. Price-based unlocks release when the market price reaches a target set at creation, monitored through a price feed. Time-based is verifiable directly on-chain, price-based depends on external data.
Which is better for team token vesting?
Time-based. Team vesting exists to prove insider supply releases gradually, and that proof is strongest when it is unambiguous and independently verifiable. A price condition publishes the level at which team tokens become sellable, which sends a different message.
Which platforms support price-based vesting?
Streamflow supports price-based unlocks on Solana. Magna supports milestone-based but not price-based. Jupiter Lock, Smithii and StakePoint offer time-based schedules only.
What is the best platform for time-based vesting on Solana?
StakePoint for most projects, combining continuous per-second release, permanent-by-default schedules, full Token-2022 support including transfer tax tokens, and a public explorer any holder can check. Streamflow is stronger for bulk creation across large recipient lists.
Do price-based unlocks cause sell pressure?
They can concentrate it. A known trigger tends to act as a ceiling, since participants tracking unlock schedules position ahead of it. The unlock then fires into a market already weakening from that anticipation.
What happens if the price target is never reached?
The tokens remain locked indefinitely. On an immutable contract there is no mechanism to revise the target, so an allocation can be permanently stranded.
What is milestone-based vesting?
Milestone vesting releases tokens when a project achievement is reached, such as a mainnet launch or a TVL target. It requires either an oracle reading off-chain data or a manual attestation, so the unlock is no longer purely mechanical.
Is continuous release better than monthly unlocks?
Yes for most projects. Continuous release spreads supply across every second, so there is no visible unlock event for the market to trade around. Monthly or quarterly unlocks concentrate the same total into discrete dates that anyone can anticipate.
What is the alternative if I am worried about unlock timing?
Extend the duration. A longer schedule reduces the market significance of any single unlock date more effectively than a price condition, and keeps the schedule verifiable without depending on a price feed.