Alright, let's get this straight. Starknet (STRK) and Arbitrum (ARB) are about to unlock a significant chunk of their circulating supply. November 15th for STRK (5%), and November 16th for ARB (2%). The chatter online suggests this could deepen existing bearish trends. But let’s see if the numbers back up the hype.
Token Unlock Tsunami?
Token unlocks are always a tricky game. The fear, of course, is that a sudden influx of tokens floods the market, triggering a sell-off and tanking the price. In Starknet's case, we're talking about a monthly cliff unlock schedule. This isn't exactly new; it's been happening for over a year. The real kicker is the December unlock, which could almost double the supply. That is a potentially seismic event.
Arbitrum, on the other hand, is on a linear unlock schedule stretching all the way to April 2027. Slower burn, slower impact, theoretically. The market seems to be anticipating pain. Starknet's price has been on a downward trajectory since November 2024, hitting a low of $0.034 before a slight rebound. And that failed breakout attempt on November 10th, confirming resistance at $0.190? Not exactly a bullish signal. Arbitrum hasn’t fared much better, breaking down from the $0.26 horizontal support and briefly dipping to $0.230.
But here’s where things get interesting. Starknet launched a yield program for Bitcoin deposits, allocating 100 million STRK tokens (about $14 million) to participants. And get this: Starknet investor deposits have more than doubled since July 2025, reaching $276 million. Is this a genuine vote of confidence, or a short-term pump before the dump? Bitcoin on Starknet? Why investors poured $276m into the layer 2 blockchain - dlnews.com Is this a genuine vote of confidence, or a short-term pump before the dump?
I have looked at hundreds of these filings, and I will say that this particular footnote is unusual.
The yield program is designed to retrofit Bitcoin into Starknet’s DeFi stack, using it as collateral and a yield-generating asset. It's an ambitious move, trying to inject some Bitcoin liquidity into the ecosystem. But will it be enough to offset the selling pressure from the token unlock?
Outage and Upgrades: A Mixed Bag
Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: the nine-hour outage in September 2025. The outage occurred after upgrading to a new version called Grinta, which increased Starknet's sequencer count from one to three. (Sequencers are critical for processing transactions.) The outage required two blockchain reorganizations (reorgs), essentially nullifying 1.5 hours of transaction activity. Not exactly confidence-inspiring.
On the bright side, Starknet also launched the S-two prover, aimed at boosting speed and lowering transaction costs. It’s a step in the right direction. But the question is: does the potential for faster, cheaper transactions outweigh the risk of instability, as demonstrated by the September outage?
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. Why would they push such a significant upgrade without more thorough testing, especially given the potential impact on transaction integrity? The fact that the reorgs wiped out 1.5 hours of activity suggests a serious flaw in the rollout. Details on why the decision was made remain scarce, but the impact is clear.
The community seems to be in wait-and-see mode. There's a palpable sense of unease, with traders closely monitoring the token unlocks. The fear of a price crash is real. But there's also a glimmer of hope that the Bitcoin yield program and the S-two prover might provide some counter-pressure.
So, What's the Real Story?
The Starknet and Arbitrum token unlocks aren't isolated events; they're data points in a larger narrative of market sentiment and technological development. While the unlocks themselves create downward pressure, Starknet's Bitcoin integration and speed improvements could act as a buffer. The September outage, though, casts a long shadow. Ultimately, the market will decide whether these projects are building genuine value or just delaying the inevitable correction.
