CCompared · 4 min read

Locked vs unlocked tokens: what the performance data shows

Locked vs unlocked tokens performance on Robinhood Chain, computed live from pool state — what the two groups actually differ on, and what the data cannot show.

885 words · about 4 minutes·Article updated 20 August 2026
The short answer

Locked vs unlocked tokens performance on Robinhood Chain is a comparison of two cohorts, not two qualities. Pools locked at creation and pools with no lock found differ on one verifiable thing: whether liquidity can be withdrawn before a release date. The table below shows how each cohort behaved. It does not explain why.

How locked vs unlocked tokens performance is measured here

A pool joins the locked cohort if Locksley reads an active liquidity lock on its position within 24 hours of pool creation. It joins the unlocked cohort if no lock was found in that window. Performance means the percentage change in pool price over the 30 days following creation, and survival means the pool still holds liquidity at day 30 — both computed from Locksley's index of Robinhood Chain pools.

"No lock found" means we found none — not that none exists. Locksley does not yet index every locker. That hedge is not a formality here: it means the unlocked cohort is really a "no lock we could read" cohort, and some pools in it are locked somewhere we do not index yet.

Measure, first 30 daysLocked at creationNo lock found
What is verifiable on-chainLocked share and exact release timestampPosition holder and current balance
Live listLocked at birthFilterable on the same index
3 identical rows hidden.

As of pending, pending of new Robinhood Chain launches locked liquidity at creation, per Locksley's contract reads.

Correlation is not causation, and this is where it matters most

Whatever gap the table shows, the lock did not create it.

A lock is a decision made by whoever deployed the token, usually before a single buyer arrived. Projects that lock at creation tend to differ from projects that do not in ways the lock itself never touches: they more often have a plan past the first week, a name attached, a budget that covered the fee, and no intention of withdrawing the pool. The lock is a visible marker of that, not the cause of anything downstream. Take an identical project and add a lock, and you have changed exactly one thing — the withdrawal date — not the demand, the supply schedule, or the team.

There is a second effect running the other way. Buyers screen for locks, so a locked pool draws flow that an unlocked one does not, which feeds back into the price series. Selection on both sides, causation demonstrated on neither.

What a lock does and does not guarantee

A lock guarantees exactly one thing: the pool cannot be withdrawn before the release date. Not the price, not the team, not the token. A locked pool can still fall.

That single guarantee is why the survival row and the price row behave differently. A lock mechanically constrains one route by which liquidity disappears, so it has a direct relationship with the survival number. It constrains nothing about price, so any gap in the price row is a statement about which projects lock, not about what locking does.

A lock also ends. The release timestamp is on-chain, and the pool becomes withdrawable the moment it passes — this week's unlocks lists what is coming due. The permanence trade-off against burning is in locks vs LP burns.

How to use this when reading a token page

Read the lock as one input, at its actual size. Locked share and release timestamp are facts anyone can verify, and reading a liquidity lock in 60 seconds shows where they sit. A lock on a small fraction of the pool constrains a small fraction of the withdrawal risk, which is why the percentage matters more than the word.

Then read the rest, because a lock is one line of a longer check: supply distribution, deployer behavior, pool depth against market cap. The 7-point check runs through them in order, and why buyers check locks first explains why this line gets read before the others.

Locking your own pool costs $150 per liquidity lock through Team Finance as of August 2026, plus gas in ETH — Team Finance is our sister product, so take the disclosure with the price: lock liquidity on Robinhood Chain. What it buys is a withdrawal date. Nothing else. See what a liquidity lock is for the mechanism.

Frequently asked questions

Do locked tokens perform better than unlocked tokens?

The median price changes in the table describe what each cohort did over one past 30-day window, recomputed at page load. Any gap reflects which projects choose to lock, not an effect of locking. A lock constrains one withdrawal route and has no mechanism by which it can move price, so the figures describe a completed cohort and forecast nothing.

Does a liquidity lock stop a token from falling?

No. A lock guarantees exactly one thing: the pool cannot be withdrawn before the release date. Not the price, not the team, not the token. A locked pool can still fall. Price moves with buying and selling against pool depth, which a lock never touches. What a lock removes is the specific outcome where the pool itself disappears before its release timestamp.

“No lock found” means we found none, not that none exists: we do not index other lockers yet, and it is never a claim about the project.

FiguresEvery number on this page is frozen at the date printed beside it and refreshed when the page is rebuilt — not live. The sentences reason about the figures, so a value that changed underneath them would make the prose wrong. Live values live on Explore and the pages it links out to. Methodology →
CorrectionsFound something wrong? Send the page and what you computed instead through the contact page. Every correction is logged publicly.
ReusePublished under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, translate it, fork it — cite the page and the date.
Who wrote thisWritten and maintained by the Locksley editorial team. Locksley is built by TrustSwap, which also owns Team Finance — the tool linked above.