Token distribution documents are published for most projects, and they contain the information that determines a great deal about future supply pressure.
Allocation
Who received tokens at launch and in what proportion.
Which typically divides between team, investors, treasury, community and ecosystem funds.
Large allocations to insiders relative to public distribution is a structural fact worth knowing.
Vesting
When allocated tokens become transferable.
Which is generally specified as a cliff followed by linear release over a period.
The cliff date is a scheduled increase in circulating supply and is publicly known in advance.
Circulating versus total versus fully diluted
Circulating counts what is currently transferable.
Total counts what exists.
Fully diluted counts what will exist under the schedule.
Which produces very different valuation figures for the same asset, and which figure is quoted is frequently chosen for effect.
Emissions
Ongoing issuance to validators, liquidity providers or participants.
Which is a continuous supply increase that must be absorbed by demand.
High emissions funding advertised yields mean the yield is paid in newly created supply.
Burn mechanisms
Destroying tokens to offset issuance.
Which may or may not exceed emissions, and net supply change is the figure that matters.
Published burn totals without corresponding issuance figures are incomplete by construction.
Utility claims
What the token is actually required for.
Which ranges from genuine protocol requirements to governance rights to nothing specific.
A token that a protocol functions without is in a different category from one required to use it.
Treasury
What the project holds and how it is controlled.
Which is generally verifiable on chain, including the addresses and their signing arrangements.
Treasuries denominated entirely in the project's own token are worth less during exactly the periods they are most needed.
Verifying claims
Allocation, vesting contracts and treasury holdings are checkable on chain.
Which means the document can be tested against reality rather than taken on trust.
This is methodological description and is not a recommendation regarding any asset.
Unlock calendars
Published schedules of when allocations become transferable.
Which are tracked publicly by several services.
Large scheduled unlocks are known in advance by everyone, which affects how they are anticipated.
Liquidity arrangements
Market maker agreements, frequently involving token loans with options.
Which are rarely disclosed and materially affect supply available for sale.
Disclosure practice has improved somewhat following criticism, and remains inconsistent.
Buybacks and revenue sharing
Some protocols direct revenue to token holders or to buybacks.
Which creates a link between usage and token demand.
The regulatory treatment of such arrangements is a live question in several jurisdictions.
Comparing projects
Fully diluted valuation relative to actual revenue is a comparable figure across projects.
Which is uncomfortable for many and is the relevant comparison.
Protocol revenue is generally verifiable on chain rather than reported.
What documents omit
Off-chain agreements, side letters and informal arrangements.
Which is why on-chain verification of what is claimed matters more than the document itself.
Initial distribution methods
Sales, airdrops, mining, liquidity incentives and retroactive rewards each produce different holder bases.
Which affects subsequent selling behaviour measurably.
Recipients who paid nothing behave differently from those who did, which is observable in post-distribution activity.
Airdrop farming
Activity generated specifically to qualify for distributions.
Which inflates usage metrics before a distribution and collapses afterwards.
Distinguishing genuine usage from anticipatory activity is difficult and matters for assessing a protocol.
Supply concentration over time
Distribution can be tracked as unlocks occur.
Which shows whether allocations were sold or retained.
This is publicly observable and is more informative than any statement of intent.
Comparing against revenue
Protocol fee revenue is generally verifiable on chain.
Which allows the valuation to be assessed against something real.
Many tokens trade at valuations implying revenue growth well beyond current levels, which is a statement of fact rather than a criticism.
Closing
These documents describe intentions, and the chain records what happened.
Reading critically
Check allocation against on-chain holdings, vesting against contract code, and treasury against actual addresses.
Which turns a marketing document into something testable.
Discrepancies between document and chain are the most informative finding available.
Closing
This is methodology rather than a recommendation regarding any specific asset.
Governance over supply
Some tokens allow governance to alter issuance, which makes the published schedule provisional.
Which is worth checking, since a fixed schedule that can be voted away is not fixed.
Whether the parameter is in a contract with a timelock, and who controls it, answers this concretely.
What to check first
Fully diluted valuation, next unlock date and net supply change over the past year.
The chain is the record and the document is the intention, so where the two disagree the chain is what happened and that discrepancy is worth more attention than anything else in the document.
One last point
Unlock schedules are public and known to everyone, which means their effect is anticipated rather than surprising, and reading them is a matter of understanding rather than of advantage.