Recently, many cryptocurrencies are undergoing large-scale unlocking cycles, such as HYPE, APT, ENA, and other projects that are gradually releasing tokens. In fact, unlocking itself isn't mysterious; simply put, it's a test of market liquidity.

But there's a detail that many people tend to overlook—the number of tokens being unlocked is meaningless by itself. What really matters is the "ratio of unlocked value to circulating market cap."

For example, if a token's unlocked value reaches hundreds of millions of dollars, it sounds intimidating. But if the circulating supply is small and the price per token is high, the pressure isn't actually that great. Conversely, some tokens have a huge unlocking quantity but the total value isn't that high, possibly because the price per token is inherently cheap. These two situations pose completely different risks.

From an investment logic perspective, periodic unlocking is essentially a cash-out channel for VCs and early-stage institutions. They turn the paper gains into real cash, which creates ongoing selling pressure in the secondary market.

For traders, this is both a trap and an opportunity. Prices often decline before unlocking due to anxiety, but after the negative news actually materializes, prices may rebound, forming a cyclical rhythm. Those who understand this pattern can even trade around the unlocking dates for some swing opportunities.

However, in the long run, unlocking is just surface-level. Whether a project can ultimately sustain itself depends on whether the project ecosystem has genuine development momentum and whether it can generate enough real demand to absorb the continuous influx of new supply.

If it's only driven by sentiment and concepts without fundamental support, unlocking will turn into a continuous bloodletting, gradually dragging the price into a downward channel. Ultimately, it still comes down to whether the project's value growth rate can outpace the token release rate.