Vesting Schedule Calculator
How Vesting Works
This tool helps you calculate token vesting schedules for blockchain projects. Enter your values below to see when tokens will unlock based on cliff or linear vesting.
Key Information
Why vesting matters more than you think in blockchain projects
Imagine you join a new blockchain startup and get offered 10,000 tokens as part of your compensation. Sounds great, right? But what if you leave after six months? Do you get half? Nothing? All of it? The answer depends entirely on the vesting schedule - and getting it wrong can cost your team talent, trust, or even the project itself.
Cliff vesting and linear vesting aren’t just jargon. They’re the backbone of how blockchain projects keep people around long enough to build something real. Most early-stage teams use a mix of both, but understanding how each works - and when to use which - makes all the difference.
What is cliff vesting? All or nothing
Cliff vesting means you get nothing until a specific date hits - then, boom, you get it all at once.
Take a common example: a one-year cliff on a four-year vesting schedule. If you start on January 1, 2025, you earn zero tokens until December 31, 2025. On that day, 25% of your total grant (say, 2,500 tokens) unlocks immediately. After that, the rest releases monthly over the next three years.
This isn’t just a financial tool - it’s a psychological one. The cliff acts like a gate. It forces people to stick around for at least a year. If someone leaves before the cliff, they walk away with nothing. That’s intentional. Startups use it to filter out short-term takers and reward those who commit.
Some projects even use three-year cliffs for core developers or early advisors. That’s extreme, but it happens. The idea? If you’re building something that takes years to gain traction, you want people who’ll stick through the dark months.
Technically, this is handled by smart contracts. They check the current date against the cliff date. If it’s not passed? Tokens stay locked in a wallet. No one can touch them. No exceptions.
What is linear vesting? Slow and steady wins the race
Linear vesting is the opposite of cliff vesting. Instead of waiting for a big unlock, you get a little bit every single day, week, or month.
With a four-year linear schedule (no cliff), you’d get 1/48th of your total tokens each month. So if you were granted 10,000 tokens, you’d receive about 208 tokens every month, starting day one.
This approach is common in more mature projects, DAOs, or teams that value predictability. Employees know exactly how much they’ll earn each pay period. It helps with personal budgeting, tax planning, and long-term career decisions.
But here’s the catch: linear vesting doesn’t stop people from leaving early. Someone could join in January, collect 1,000 tokens by February, and then quit. No penalty. No cliff to protect the project. That’s why most blockchain teams don’t use pure linear vesting - they combine it with a cliff.
Linear vesting also makes sense for roles where contributions are steady but not explosive - like community managers, writers, or ops staff. You want them around, but you don’t need to lock them in with a year-long test.
The industry standard: 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff
Here’s what you’ll see in 9 out of 10 blockchain startups: a four-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff.
Let’s break it down with numbers:
- Total grant: 10,000 tokens
- Cliff: 12 months - no tokens unlock until then
- After cliff: 25% (2,500 tokens) unlock on day 365
- Then: 2,083 tokens per year, or about 173 tokens per month, for the next 36 months
This model balances two needs:
- Protection - you don’t want someone taking equity and leaving after six months.
- Motivation - you don’t want people to burn out waiting a whole year for nothing.
It’s the Goldilocks zone: not too hot, not too cold. The first year acts as a trial period. If the person proves they’re valuable, they get rewarded. If not, the project walks away with no loss.
Companies like Sui, Aptos, and early Ethereum teams all use this structure. Even institutional investors require it in their term sheets. It’s become the default for a reason.
When to use cliff vesting - and when to avoid it
Cliff vesting shines when you need to ensure commitment. Use it for:
- Core developers - building protocol code takes years. You need them to stick around.
- Founding team members - if they bail early, the project dies. The cliff protects everyone else.
- Advisors who are expected to be active for a full year.
But cliff vesting has downsides. If someone leaves right before the cliff, they get nothing. That can feel brutal. And if your competitors offer linear vesting, you might lose top talent who don’t want to wait.
Some teams now use six-month cliffs to stay competitive in hot markets. Others use 18-month cliffs for critical roles like CTOs or lead blockchain engineers. But those are exceptions. The one-year cliff still dominates because it’s the sweet spot between fairness and protection.
When linear vesting makes sense - and when it’s risky
Linear vesting works best when:
- You’re a DAO with a large, distributed team and want transparency.
- You’re paying contractors or part-time contributors who don’t need long-term locks.
- You’re in a mature project where retention isn’t the main concern.
But here’s the problem: linear vesting alone gives zero retention power. Someone could join, grab 10% of their tokens in three months, and leave. That’s not just unfair to the team - it’s financially risky. If you’re giving away 10,000 tokens to someone who only contributes for three months, you’ve wasted 2,500 tokens that could’ve gone to someone who stayed.
That’s why pure linear vesting is rare in early-stage blockchain projects. It’s usually paired with a cliff, or used only for non-core roles.
Hybrid models: The real world isn’t black and white
Most teams don’t pick just one. They mix.
Some use a 6-month cliff followed by monthly vesting over 3.5 years. Others use back-loaded vesting - where more tokens unlock in years 3 and 4 - to reward long-term loyalty. A few even tie vesting to milestones: “You get 20% when the mainnet launches, 30% when we hit 100K users.”
These custom models are growing. As blockchain projects mature, teams realize one-size-fits-all doesn’t work. A community moderator doesn’t need the same vesting as a lead smart contract auditor.
Smart contracts make this easier than ever. You can code in different schedules for different roles. No spreadsheets. No manual tracking. Just clean, automated logic.
What happens when people leave early?
With cliff vesting: if you leave before the cliff, you get zero. Simple. Clean. No gray area.
With linear vesting: you keep what you’ve already vested. So if you leave after 18 months on a four-year linear schedule, you keep 37.5% of your tokens.
But here’s the real question: what happens to the rest?
In most cases, unvested tokens go back into the company’s treasury. They’re then redistributed to new hires, used for future grants, or burned. This is critical - it ensures equity doesn’t get diluted by people who didn’t stick around.
Make sure your tokenomics document spells this out. Ambiguity here leads to legal risk and team tension.
Common mistakes teams make
- Using no cliff at all - invites short-term opportunists.
- Setting a 3-year cliff - too long. People will leave before it ends.
- Forgetting to define what happens if someone is fired - is it still unvested? What if it’s a layoff?
- Not syncing vesting with pay cycles - if you pay monthly but vest quarterly, people get confused.
- Using the same schedule for everyone - a marketing lead doesn’t need the same lock-up as a core dev.
The most successful teams treat vesting like a contract - clear, fair, and legally sound. They document it. They explain it. They don’t assume everyone understands.
Final takeaway: Match the vesting to your stage
If you’re a brand-new blockchain startup with 5 people: use a 4-year vesting schedule with a 1-year cliff. It’s the standard for a reason.
If you’re a DAO with 50 contributors and a stable treasury: consider linear vesting for non-core roles, and cliff vesting for your core team.
If you’re raising funds: investors will demand the 4-year/1-year cliff. Don’t argue. Just accept it.
There’s no perfect vesting schedule. But there’s a perfect one for your team - if you think about it early, clearly, and with real people in mind.
What’s the difference between cliff vesting and linear vesting?
Cliff vesting releases all tokens at once after a set period (like one year), with nothing before that. Linear vesting releases tokens evenly over time - for example, 1/48th each month over four years. Cliff vesting protects the project from early departures; linear vesting gives steady, predictable rewards.
Is a one-year cliff standard in blockchain projects?
Yes. The four-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff is the industry standard for early-stage blockchain startups. It balances the need to retain talent with the risk of demotivating employees during a long wait. Most investors, legal advisors, and founders agree this is the optimal starting point.
Can I use linear vesting without a cliff?
You can, but it’s risky. Without a cliff, someone could join, collect a portion of their tokens in a few months, and leave with no penalty. This is common in DAOs or mature projects where retention isn’t the main concern. For early teams, always pair linear vesting with at least a six-month cliff.
What happens to unvested tokens when someone leaves?
They return to the company’s token treasury. From there, they can be reallocated to new hires, used for future grants, or burned to reduce total supply. This prevents dilution and ensures equity stays with people who contribute long-term.
Do investors care about vesting schedules?
Yes - deeply. Investors use vesting schedules to protect their investment. If founders or key team members could walk away with all their tokens on day one, the project would be too risky. A 4-year/1-year cliff is often a requirement in term sheets. If you don’t have one, investors will ask you to add it before funding.
Stanley Machuki
December 10, 2025 AT 17:06Kelly Burn
December 11, 2025 AT 07:05Andy Walton
December 11, 2025 AT 16:11Lloyd Cooke
December 12, 2025 AT 12:51Jessica Eacker
December 13, 2025 AT 18:03Jessica Petry
December 14, 2025 AT 17:11Kathleen Sudborough
December 15, 2025 AT 01:47PRECIOUS EGWABOR
December 16, 2025 AT 13:49Kim Throne
December 17, 2025 AT 22:06Vidhi Kotak
December 19, 2025 AT 07:50amar zeid
December 20, 2025 AT 02:58Alex Warren
December 20, 2025 AT 13:08Sue Gallaher
December 20, 2025 AT 15:52Nicholas Ethan
December 22, 2025 AT 10:55Rakesh Bhamu
December 23, 2025 AT 09:38Kurt Chambers
December 23, 2025 AT 17:57Hari Sarasan
December 24, 2025 AT 03:35Caroline Fletcher
December 25, 2025 AT 03:12Madison Surface
December 26, 2025 AT 15:28John Sebastian
December 27, 2025 AT 17:17Jeremy Eugene
December 28, 2025 AT 14:53Lynne Kuper
December 30, 2025 AT 14:05Ian Norton
January 1, 2026 AT 00:10Eunice Chook
January 1, 2026 AT 10:59