M I K A

When people say a token “can’t move,” it’s usually not because the project is bad. It’s because the market is fighting a simple problem: new supply becomes sellable faster than new demand shows up. That’s what “supply + unlocks = price pressure” really means. Price is just the clearing point between buyers trying to push it up and new tokens constantly showing up that someone is willing to sell.

For $VANRY , it helps to stop thinking of supply as one number and start thinking of it as a flow. Supply only hurts when it becomes liquid and it lands in the hands of people who have a reason to convert it. A token can have a big max supply and still pump if most of it is locked or held tightly. And a token can have a smaller supply and still struggle if it’s constantly paying out new tokens to recipients who sell them like clockwork.

There are basically two ways the market gets hit with new tokens. One is the classic unlock: tokens that were locked for a period of time become tradable on a schedule. That’s vesting, cliffs, monthly releases — the stuff traders track on calendars. The other is emissions: tokens that are created or distributed continuously as rewards, usually for securing the network or bootstrapping the ecosystem. Emissions don’t feel like an “unlock event,” but in practice they behave like one because they generate steady sellable supply.

Emissions are often the more stubborn type of pressure because they don’t end after one date. They repeat. That’s why you’ll sometimes see a token rally on hype and still fail to trend: the market is absorbing a steady stream of sell flow underneath the surface.

Now the most important part isn’t just how many tokens get released. It’s who receives them. Sellers aren’t all the same.

If most of the flow is going to validators or infrastructure operators, you should assume consistent selling. Not because they hate the project — because they run businesses. They have servers to pay for, operational expenses, risk management, and they typically don’t want their treasury fully exposed to one coin’s volatility. Even validators who are long-term believers often sell a portion of rewards regularly. That creates a quiet ceiling on price: every pump into liquidity becomes an opportunity for systematic distribution.

If part of the flow goes to development rewards, grants, partnerships, or ecosystem funding, the selling pattern tends to be more “chunky.” It’s not necessarily daily, but it can be heavy when distributions occur. Teams and builders usually pay salaries and invoices in stablecoins or fiat, not in a volatile token. So even when these rewards are good for growth, they can still translate into real sell pressure as recipients convert tokens to fund work.

Airdrops and broad community incentives are a different kind of pressure. Even if that portion of supply is smaller, the velocity can be brutal. Airdrop recipients often have low or zero cost basis and weak attachment, so the default behavior is to sell quickly—especially into the first strong bounce or after a distribution wave. This is why you can see sudden dumps that don’t look “technical” at all. It’s not the chart. It’s the recipient type.

Then there’s the group nobody talks about clearly: legacy holders. Any token with history tends to accumulate holders with a wide range of entry prices. Some got in early, some swapped from an earlier token, some bought tops, some bought lows. That mix creates predictable behavior: these holders usually don’t sell randomly; they sell when the market offers liquidity—big volume days, exchange listings, big announcements, strong green candles. That’s why a coin can look bullish and still hit invisible resistance. It’s not invisible. It’s just old supply waiting for a good exit moment.

This is also why focusing only on “vesting unlock dates” can be misleading. Unlocks matter most when there’s a large locked allocation that becomes liquid in chunks. But if a token’s circulating supply is already close to its max, then the bigger day-to-day question becomes emissions and distribution behavior. In that situation, the market isn’t scared of a single cliff; it’s dealing with a continuous drip. A drip can be more damaging than a cliff because it stops momentum from building.

Inflation versus deflation is where people get confused. Inflation doesn’t automatically kill price. It kills price when there isn’t enough demand to offset it. If a network has strong sinks—real fee burns, meaningful locks, or utility that forces spending rather than rewarding—then emissions can be absorbed or even outweighed. If sinks are weak or cosmetic, emissions dominate and the market needs continuous new buyers just to stay flat. That’s when you get the classic feeling of “every pump gets sold.”

You can actually see all of this without needing insider wallet tracking. The chart tells you, if you know what you’re looking for. If breakouts keep failing quickly, it often means buy pressure isn’t absorbing the new supply that shows up at the same levels. If rallies need constant news to hold up, it’s usually because supply is leaking into the market in the background and the only thing keeping price elevated is fresh attention. If you see volume spikes followed by a slow bleed, that’s often distribution into liquidity and then a lack of follow-through buying once the excitement fades.

So the clean way to think about $VANRY in this specific context is simple: price pressure comes from how much new supply becomes liquid and how motivated the recipients are to sell it. If a meaningful share of ongoing distribution lands with validators, ecosystem budgets, and incentive recipients, you should expect constant overhead supply until real demand grows enough to absorb it. When demand finally does outrun that flow, the behavior flips: breakouts start holding, pullbacks become shallow, and price doesn’t need hype every week to stay bid.

That’s the whole point of “supply + unlocks = price pressure.” It’s not a narrative. It’s a cashflow problem. And the market only stops feeling heavy when the token’s incoming sell flow becomes smaller than the incoming buy flow.

#Vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY

Plasma can ship great tech and still trade like every other liquid token, because price doesn’t move on architecture first — it moves on flow. The simplest way to look at it is: if more $XPL becomes sellable faster than new buyers show up, price feels pressure. If demand grows faster than liquid supply, unlocks get absorbed and the chart holds up.

When people say “supply,” they usually mean one number. In reality there are two different supply engines that matter for price pressure. The first is the genesis supply — the tokens that exist from day one but aren’t all liquid at once. The second is ongoing issuance — emissions that can mint new tokens over time through validator rewards. Unlocks create “availability” of supply; emissions create “fresh” supply. Both can push on price, but they do it in different ways.

On the unlock side, the important thing isn’t just how many tokens exist, it’s where the unlocks sit and who receives them. Different holders behave differently. Public sale buyers tend to be the most sensitive to early volatility and the quickest to take profit during the first big move. Ecosystem recipients (incentives, liquidity rewards, campaign distributions) are usually the most consistent sellers because they treat tokens like yield — something to harvest and convert, not necessarily hold long-term. Investors typically sell into strength or manage risk around major vesting events. Teams are often slower and more constrained, but when their tokens become liquid, the market still prices the optionality to sell. Then you have validators and delegators later on, who become a structural seller cohort because rewards arrive continuously and operators often sell a portion to cover costs.

That’s why vesting shape matters as much as vesting size. A cliff is psychologically different from a smooth monthly schedule. Before a cliff, supply is locked and price can rally on thinner float, but everyone knows a “permission moment” is coming — the date when a group gains the ability to sell. As you approach that moment, markets often start to trade it like an event: some participants front-run with pre-selling, others wait to buy the post-unlock reaction. At the cliff itself, the question isn’t “will it unlock?” — it will. The question is whether the order book can absorb it without breaking structure. After the cliff, if the schedule turns into a predictable monthly stream, the market usually adapts, but that stream can still cap upside unless demand expands.

Ecosystem unlocks are their own kind of pressure. They often don’t show up as one violent candle. They show up as a slow leak — regular incentives, LP rewards, integrations funded with tokens, campaigns that drop tokens into the hands of users who immediately sell because it feels like free money. Even if the intent is growth, the market experiences it as additional sell flow. That’s why you’ll sometimes see a token “feel heavy” even without dramatic unlock events: it’s not a single dump, it’s constant distribution.

Then there’s emissions, which is where supply turns from “schedule-driven” into “structural.” Unlocks are finite — once everything vests, that part ends. Emissions don’t end unless the protocol changes them. The real price question once emissions are live is not just the inflation rate on paper, but the sell-through rate in practice. If most rewards are staked, compounded, or held, emissions add supply without immediately becoming sell pressure. If validators and delegators routinely sell rewards (which is common for operations, risk management, and taxes), then emissions become a steady drip into the market. In weak demand environments, that drip can grind price down slowly. In strong demand environments, it can be invisible.

The only native counterweight is burn. If base fees are burned, usage can offset issuance. But burn isn’t guaranteed — it depends on activity that generates fees. If a big portion of the chain’s most common actions are designed to be very cheap or sponsored, then meaningful burn has to come from broader economic activity: contracts, apps, MEV dynamics, general transaction load. So the tug-of-war is simple: unlocks plus emissions expand supply; burn plus adoption absorbs it.

When you compress all of this into a tradable framework, you end up with a few practical questions that matter more than narratives. How much new supply becomes liquid each month relative to real float, not just total supply? Who is receiving that supply — long-term holders, incentive farmers, funds, or operators who need to sell? Are the big unlock moments clustered into cliffs or smoothed into streams? When emissions fully activate, what portion of rewards is likely to be sold? And finally, is network usage strong enough that burn meaningfully reduces net new supply?

That’s the supply-and-unlocks story in one line: $XPL price pressure is not mysterious. It’s the collision of a known unlock schedule, the behavior of the holders receiving tokens, and whether real demand grows fast enough to absorb that flow.

#plasma @Plasma $XPL