Token unlocks, circulating supply and FDV: how to read the numbers

A token unlock removes a restriction according to a schedule or condition. It does not tell you that the recipient has claimed the tokens, transferred them to an exchange, or sold them. Those are separate events requiring separate evidence.

Reading unlock data well means answering three questions: what becomes available, how that availability is measured, and which valuation calculation uses it. Keeping those questions separate prevents a calendar entry from becoming an unsupported market forecast.

Define the supply before doing the arithmetic

CoinGecko's supply methodology distinguishes maximum, total and circulating supply. Maximum supply is the theoretical coded limit, where one exists. Total supply reflects minted tokens minus burned tokens. Circulating supply is an estimate of tokens available to the public market.

The methodology can exclude foundation, treasury or other stakeholder holdings even when they are technically unlocked. Consequently, “unlocked supply” and a provider's “circulating supply” need not match. A provider's exclusion policy is part of the data, not a small footnote to it.

Record the metric name and source alongside every number. A comparison between one project's circulating supply and another project's unlocked allocation can look precise while measuring different things.

Also distinguish a minted token leaving a vesting contract from a newly minted token. The former can change availability without increasing total supply. The latter changes the stock of existing tokens, subject to any simultaneous burns. An article describing both as “new supply” should explain which meaning it intends.

Calculate market capitalization and FDV consistently

The basic calculation is:

Market capitalization = token price × circulating supply

CoinGecko's FDV explanation uses:

Fully diluted valuation = token price × total supply

Always check the display's actual convention, including whether a maximum-supply figure is used instead. Label the denominator explicitly when reproducing a calculation.

Both measures multiply a unit price by a token count. Neither measures how much cash entered the market or what every holder could receive by selling. FDV also does not predict the price when additional tokens become available: its calculation holds the chosen price constant.

If both metrics use the same price and timestamp, market capitalization divided by FDV equals circulating supply divided by the supply used for FDV. The ratio describes that supply relationship. It does not say how quickly the difference will circulate.

Work through an example without predicting the price

Consider a hypothetical token with a $2 price, 100 million circulating tokens and 500 million total tokens. Using total supply for FDV gives a $200 million market capitalization and a $1 billion FDV.

Now suppose 20 million already-minted tokens become transferable. If the circulating-supply definition counts all of them and the price remains $2, circulating supply becomes 120 million and market capitalization becomes $240 million. Total supply remains 500 million, so FDV stays $1 billion.

The 20 million unlock equals 20% of the previous circulating supply but only 4% of total supply. Both percentages are arithmetically correct. Each answers a different question, so a headline saying simply “4% unlock” is incomplete without its denominator.

These assumptions are deliberately narrow. They do not establish that the price will remain constant, that a provider will immediately count the tokens, or that recipients will sell. The example isolates the accounting effect so it cannot be mistaken for a forecast.

Read the allocation and release mechanism together

Official allocation documents identify the intended recipients and broad timetable. For example, Arbitrum's distribution documentation describes investor and team tokens with a four-year lockup structure: the first unlock one year after the March 2023 token generation event, followed by monthly unlocks over the remaining three years.

That is a documented historical schedule, not a claim about an upcoming event. A current event report would additionally need the applicable allocation, contract state, amendments and exact timestamp.

A schedule should also distinguish a cliff from a gradual release. A cliff makes an amount eligible at a defined point; a linear schedule accrues availability over time. Neither term establishes that someone will immediately exercise the resulting right.

The OpenZeppelin VestingWallet documentation illustrates the implementation distinction. It describes assets held for a beneficiary and released according to a customizable vesting schedule. A quantity can therefore be eligible for release while still held by the contract. This is an implementation example, not a claim that every token uses that contract or identical behavior.

Reconcile committed, available and circulating tokens

Official reporting can use additional categories. An Optimism Foundation budget update explicitly separated circulating tokens from commitments involving lockups, vesting or milestones. It is useful as a dated example of category definitions, rather than a source for today's balances.

The analytical lesson is to trace a token through its states. An allocation can be approved without being paid. A grant can be committed subject to a milestone. A token can be released to a recipient without becoming available in a trading venue's order book.

Use this editorial worksheet when checking an unlock claim:

When sources disagree, preserve both definitions before trying to choose a number. Identify whether the disagreement concerns timing, an excluded wallet, an unclaimed balance or a changed allocation. A transparent explanation of that difference is more useful than false precision.

A supply calculation also leaves the cost of an actual trade unresolved. Our DEX price-impact and slippage guide explains why the available quote depends on trade size and liquidity.

Source review: 22 September 2026.