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.