Celestia

Allocation Structure & Vesting Schedule
TIA’s tokenomics are presented as a series of overlapping allocation slices, which makes a precise breakdown difficult. The most consistently reported figures allocate roughly 17‑18 % of the supply to the core team (two separate entries of 17.6 % and 18.8 %). Ecosystem incentives account for the largest single share, with two high‑confidence entries totalling about 43 % (26.8 % + 16.3 %). Community reserves are listed at 20 %, while investors are split between two tranches that together represent roughly 35.6 % of the total (19.7 % + 15.9 %). Airdrop allocations appear in two entries for a combined 16 % (5.32 % + 10.7 %). The treasury is earmarked at 15.04 %. Finally, “Other” categories dominate the residual share, contributing an additional 80.7 % when summed (30.6 % + 50.14 %), but these figures carry low confidence and likely overlap with the previously mentioned buckets. No explicit vesting terms, cliff periods, or release schedules have been disclosed for any category, leaving the timing of token releases largely opaque.

Upcoming Unlocks, Risks & Confidence
Because the vesting schedule is not publicly defined, pinpointing exact unlock dates is speculative. Assuming industry‑standard practices, team and investor allocations would typically follow a four‑year linear vesting with a one‑year cliff, while ecosystem and community pools might be released in staged tranches over 12‑24 months. However, the absence of concrete parameters introduces significant uncertainty around future supply inflation. The most salient risk stems from the ambiguous “Other” allocations, which could represent undisclosed reserves or overlapping counts; if these tokens are released en masse, price pressure could be severe. Additionally, the dual airdrop entries suggest a sizable free‑distribution component that may trigger short‑term sell pressure once recipients become liquid. Overall confidence in the token’s allocation transparency is assessed as Medium: while high‑confidence data exists for several major categories, the contradictory and low‑confidence “Other” entries, combined with a lack of vesting detail, prevent a high‑certainty rating. Investors should monitor official communications for any forthcoming vesting schedules or clarification of the “Other” pool before committing capital.