Unvest vs Team finance
Comparing Token Vesting, Liquidity Locks, Token Minting, and Staking Services for Your Project
Introduction
In the rapidly evolving world of decentralized finance and web3 applications, managing project tokens through vesting, liquidity locks, token minting, and staking is essential. With various options available in the market, it can be challenging to choose the best service for your needs. In this article, we will compare Unvest and Team finance, two popular token management services, to help you make an informed decision for your project.
| Unvest | Team finance | |
|---|---|---|
| Token Vesting | ✅ | ✅ |
| Liquidity Locks | ✅ | ✅ |
| Token Minting | ✅ (0% fee) | ✅ (0.5% of supply fee) |
| Staking Pools | ✅ | ✅ |
| Custom Branding | ✅ | ❌ |
| Self-Service Platform | ✅ | ✅ |
| Multisig Support | ✅ | ❓ |
| Composable & Compatible | ✅ (ERC20 vestingTokens & liquidLocks) | ❌ |
| Security & Reliability | Zero exploits since 2021 launch | Hacked in 2022 |
| Pricing | ✅ Free | ❌ $75+ fees on vesting & locks |
| Smart Contract Visibility | ✅ | ❌ |
Features and Benefits
Unvest stands out by offering a unique approach to token vesting. By wrapping vested tokens into composable ERC20 primitives called vestingTokens, Unvest provides increased flexibility and compatibility. In addition, Unvest has a dedicated marketplace called illiquid market for trading these wrapped tokens OTC. Furthermore, Unvest offers white labeling and custom branding as standard features, enhancing the user experience for investors and project teams alike.
Beyond vesting, Unvest also supports liquidity locks, multisender, token creator, and staking pools, providing a comprehensive solution for projects to manage their tokens.
On the other hand, Team finance is a reliable service associated with the popular Trustswap launchpad. However, their tooling for complex vesting schedules is more limited compared to Unvest’s, and they do not use vesting tokens. It is also not clear whether they support multisigs like Gnosis Safe. Additionally, Team finance does not verify all of their smart contracts on block explorers like Etherscan, making them less accessible to the public.
Pricing
Unvest offers all its core services for free, with charges only applicable to premium features like hosting on a custom domain. In contrast, Team finance charges $75+ fees on vesting and liquidity locks, and their token minter carries a 0.5% fee of the entire supply (which can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars if your project is succesful).
Open and Permissionless
Both Unvest and Team finance offer self-service platforms that don’t require a screening process. This makes it easy for users to access and utilize their services.
Integration and Compatibility
Unvest’s use of ERC20 standard for wrapped vesting tokens provides enhanced composability and integration with other protocols.
Security and Reliability
Unvest has an impressive security record, with zero exploits since its launch in 2021. In contrast, Team finance suffered a hack in 2022 that affected customer funds. This raises concerns about their security and reliability.
Conclusion
When comparing Unvest and Team finance, Unvest emerges as the superior choice for token management services. With its unique vestingToken approach, enhanced composability, competitive pricing, and strong security record, Unvest offers a comprehensive solution for projects looking to manage their tokens effectively.