Unvest vs Unicrypt
Comparing Vesting, LP Lock and Staking Solutions for Web3 Projects
Selecting the right token management service is essential for the success of blockchain projects. In this article, we compare Unvest and Unicrypt, two popular token management platforms, to help you make the best decision for your project.
✅ (Wrapped vestingTokens for increased flexibility)
✅ (Wrapped liquidLocks for enhanced composability)
Integration & Compatibility
✅ Composable ERC20 wrapped tokens for vesting & locks
❌ $15,000 for whitelisting, 0.3-1% fees on locked/sent tokens
Security & Reliability
Zero exploits since 2021 launch
$2.5m user funds lost in 2022 BSC LP migration exploit
Unvest's unique approach to token vesting involves wrapping vested tokens into composable ERC20 primitives called vestingTokens. This innovation allows for increased flexibility and compatibility within the DeFi ecosystem. Additionally, Unvest offers a dedicated marketplace called illiquid market for trading these wrapped tokens OTC. White labeling and custom branding are also standard features with Unvest.
Beyond vesting, Unvest supports liquidity locks (using wrapped liquidLocks), multisender, token creator, and staking pools, providing a comprehensive suite of tools for projects to manage their tokens.
Unicrypt offers similar features, including token vesting, liquidity locks, token minting, and staking/farming. However, their tools may not provide the same level of flexibility and customization as Unvest, particularly in regards to vesting tokens.
Both Unvest and Unicrypt offer self-service platforms that allow users to access and utilize their services without a screening process. This approach enhances the user experience, making it easy for projects to access the tools they need.
Unvest's use of the ERC20 standard for wrapped vesting tokens and liquidLocks provides enhanced composability and integration with other protocols. In comparison, Unicrypt does not offer similar compatibility features, as they do not use vestingTokens.
Unvest offers all its core services for free, charging only for premium features like hosting on a custom domain. Unicrypt, on the other hand, has more expensive pricing, including a $15,000 fee for whitelisting and fees ranging from 0.3-1% on the entire balance of tokens locked or sent via their system, including liquidity locks.
Unvest has an excellent security track record, with zero exploits since its launch in 2021. As for Unicrypt, no major security issues have been reported - however, $2.5m worth of Safemoon token were stolen in a 2022 exploit that targeted Unicrypt's LP migration tool.
When comparing Unvest and Unicrypt, Unvest emerges as the superior choice for token management services, including vesting, liquidity locks, token minting, and staking. With its unique vestingToken approach, enhanced composability, competitive pricing, and user-friendly platform, Unvest offers a comprehensive solution for projects looking to manage their tokens effectively.