Law and Ledger is a news segment focusing on crypto legal news, brought to you by Kelman Law – A law firm focused on digital asset commerce
You funded a crypto project under a token purchase agreement or a Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT). The expected launch date has passed. Perhaps the token is already trading, but your allocation has not arrived. The team may be asking you to accept a longer vesting schedule, a smaller allocation, or tokens issued by a different entity
At that point, the question is practical: should you keep waiting, negotiate new terms, or pursue a claim?
The answer starts with the agreement, the events that triggered delivery, and the evidence of what happened. A missed expectation does not necessarily establish a breach. Equally, a project’s explanation for the delay should be tested against its actual obligations
“Token investment” can describe very different arrangements. A SAFT, token warrant, direct purchase agreement, and advisory agreement may provide different rights. The document’s title alone will not tell you whether tokens are currently due
Read the signed agreement alongside its schedules, amendments, and side letters. Identify
Separate a projected launch date in a pitch deck from a binding deadline. Also distinguish token delivery from vesting and the ability to sell. Tokens might be delivered to a restricted wallet before they become transferable, or delivered in installments as they vest
These distinctions determine what you should be asking the project to do
Consider a hypothetical agreement requiring delivery within 30 days of a defined “Token Generation Event.” The project announces a launch and distributes tokens to other participants, but tells you that your allocation will be addressed later
The central questions are whether that launch satisfies the contractual definition and whether any other delivery conditions remain outstanding. Public announcements, transaction records, and the project’s explanation may all help answer them
Where New York law applies, an express condition can determine whether a performance obligation has arisen. In MHR Capital Partners v. Presstek, the Court of Appeals explained both the significance of contractual conditions and the principle that a party cannot rely on a condition’s failure where it frustrated or prevented its occurrence. nycourts.gov
Applied to a token dispute, that means counsel should examine both the wording and the conduct. Did the relevant event occur? Did the investor complete the required steps? Is there evidence that the project itself obstructed a condition it now relies on?
A generic statement that “the launch was delayed” does not resolve those questions
A request to accept revised terms deserves its own review. Ask the project to identify the contractual provision authorizing the change and provide the proposed amendment in full
The agreement may give the issuer discretion over certain matters or permit amendments with approval from a specified group of investors. Alternatively, the proposed change may require your consent. The scope of that authority matters as much as its existence
Before accepting, compare the original and proposed arrangements. Is the project extending a lockup, changing the allocation formula, substituting another token, or transferring responsibility to another entity? Does the document also release existing claims?
For example, an offer of partial delivery may include a release covering the entire investment. The immediate token distribution is only one part of that bargain
A negotiated extension may be commercially sensible. It should reflect a deliberate assessment of what you receive, what you give up, and how the revised obligation will be performed
Prepare a single chronology covering the investment, promised milestones, actual launch events, delivery requests, and responses. Keep the underlying records, including
Preserve original files and available metadata. Screenshots can help, but may omit context or identifying information. Record the source and date of public material that could later change
Blockchain records can show a transfer between addresses. Additional evidence may be needed to connect those addresses to the contracting parties or explain why a transfer matters
Give counsel the unfavorable material too: missed investor deadlines, incomplete verification requests, or messages accepting an extension may affect the analysis
A productive demand identifies the obligation, explains why performance is due, and specifies the requested remedy. It should also account for any required notice method, opportunity to cure, negotiation period, or dispute procedure
Check the agreement’s governing law and forum provisions. Counsel should determine whether the dispute belongs in court or arbitration and what preliminary steps apply. Notice requirements depend on the actual drafting; a message to the founder may not serve the same purpose as a contractual notice
Ask counsel to assess filing deadlines early. Continued discussions should not be treated as assurance that your claim will remain timely
The goal is to make the next step effective: obtain performance, secure a workable settlement, or prepare a claim that can proceed in the proper forum
Identify the outcome you want. Would delivery of the original allocation still solve the problem? Would a refund or payment be preferable? Is the proposed replacement token commercially acceptable?
Counsel can assess which remedies the contract and applicable law support. A delayed distribution does not automatically entitle every investor to a refund, a court order compelling delivery, or the token’s highest historical price
Valuation requires particular care. If tokens were subject to a lockup, or trading was thin, a headline market price may say little about what the investor could actually have realized
Under New York law, a claim for lost profits requires proof of causation, reasonable certainty, and the parties’ contemplation of those damages when contracting. The court’s discussion in Buffalo Riverworks v. Schenne illustrates why speculative projections are insufficient. Although that case did not involve tokens, the evidentiary questions are useful when evaluating a proposed lost-profit claim. nycourts.gov
The analysis should also consider collection. Which entity is responsible? Where are its assets? What would enforcement involve? A claim’s legal merits and its practical recovery prospects both matter when deciding how much to spend pursuing it
Repeated delays, unexplained changes to an allocation, or demands for a broad release are reasons to review your position before making another commitment
Kelman PLLC advises on digital asset transactions and represents clients in litigation and arbitration. Its commercial transactions practice also assists with negotiating and documenting agreements. kelman.law
If a project has withheld your tokens or proposed changing your investment terms, contact Kelman PLLC to discuss the dispute. Briefly identify the agreement, the amount at stake, the parties involved, and any approaching deadline. Do not submit confidential documents through the initial contact form
Attorney Advertising. This article provides general information, not legal advice. Rights and remedies depend on the agreement, applicable law, and facts. Contacting the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship
