TL;DR. A token warrant is a hybrid instrument for web3 startups that have raised equity but may later issue a native protocol token. It gives equity investors the right, at a future token-generation event, to purchase tokens at an agreed price. This is novel territory — use with careful securities counsel.
This post is part of the Montague Entrepreneur Forms Library — a free, plain-English collection of the legal documents every startup needs between its first day and its Series A. Pillar: Raise the Money.
What this document actually does
A token warrant is a contract between a crypto startup and one of its equity investors. The company has raised on a SAFE or a priced round, but it also plans — at some uncertain future date — to issue its own native blockchain token. The investor wants exposure to the token if and when it’s issued. The token warrant is the instrument that papers that right. Mechanically, it gives the investor the right (but not the obligation) to purchase a specific number of tokens at an agreed price, exercisable during a defined window that opens at the Token Generation Event.
The amount of tokens the investor gets is typically tied to their equity ownership percentage. If the company’s native token launches with ten percent of the total supply allocated to equity holders, and the investor owns two percent of the company on a fully-diluted basis, the investor’s token warrant gives them two percent of ten percent — 0.2% of the total token supply. The exercise price is either nominal (if the tokens were, in effect, already paid for as part of the equity investment) or tied to a discount from the TGE price.
When you’ll encounter it
You’ll see a token warrant in two situations. First: you’re a web3 founder raising equity and you have sophisticated crypto-native investors (Paradigm, Pantera, Multicoin, a16z crypto) who want token exposure as part of the deal. Second: you’re a hybrid company — you’re raising on a traditional SAFE or Series Seed, but you’ve told investors you may issue a protocol token if and when it makes sense for the network. In both cases, the token warrant is the instrument that preserves the investors’ upside in the token without committing the company to actually issue one.
The narrative — novel territory
This is novel territory. There is no settled market practice and no Practical Law standard document. Current forms circulating in the market owe most of their DNA to a small number of big-firm templates and open-source forms, but lawyers vary substantially on key terms: whether to tie the token allocation to equity ownership or to the investor’s dollar commitment, the length of the TGE tail (12, 24, or 36 months), vesting and lockup on tokens matching network tokenomics, transfer restrictions, and the scope of the Howey-conscious disclaimer language. The single most important thing to understand about token warrants is that they are only safe to use with careful securities counsel. If the tokens are ultimately deemed securities under SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., the warrant itself is also a security and the issuance must fit inside a private-placement exemption. Get this wrong and the regulatory exposure can be existential.
— Montague Law, Entrepreneur Forms Library
The levers
Lever 1 — Allocation methodology
Equity-pro-rata is the most common approach: the investor’s token allocation equals their fully-diluted equity percentage times the total number of tokens allocated to equity holders. The alternative is dollar-based: the investor’s commitment dollars divided by an implied network valuation cap, multiplied by total token supply. Equity pro-rata is simpler and more defensible; dollar-based gives more predictability but requires more assumptions.
Lever 2 — The tail period
The warrant has to expire if no TGE happens within some reasonable window. Typical tails are 24 to 36 months from the issue date. Longer tails give the company more flexibility but leave the warrant hanging; shorter tails put pressure on the company to either launch a token or clearly tell the investor it’s not going to.
Lever 3 — Lockups and vesting
Tokens issued upon exercise should be subject to the same lockup and vesting schedule applied to other equity-holder token allocations at the TGE. This is fair to all equity holders and protects the network from a coordinated dump by early investors.
Lever 4 — Howey disclaimer
Every token warrant should contain explicit language that (a) the company makes no representation as to the characterization of the tokens as securities under any applicable law, (b) regulatory treatment may change, and (c) the investor bears the regulatory risk. This doesn’t make the warrant safe — only careful structure and sophisticated counsel do that — but it’s a floor.
The anti-double-counting provision
If the Company at any time distributes Company Tokens directly to the holders of its capital stock on a pro rata basis (an "Equity Airdrop") and the Holder receives its full pro rata share of such Equity Airdrop, then the Allocated Tokens otherwise issuable to the Holder upon exercise of this Warrant shall be automatically reduced by the number of Company Tokens so received, such that the Holder is not entitled to any duplicative issuance of Company Tokens.
This clause fixes a trap in the early 2021–2022 generation of token warrants. If the company later decides to distribute tokens directly to equity holders (an "equity airdrop"), an investor who is both an equity holder and a token warrant holder would, without this clause, receive tokens twice — once through the airdrop and again through warrant exercise. The anti-double-counting clause reduces the warrant allocation by the airdrop amount so there’s no double dip.
Traps for the unwary
- Treating the warrant as routine. It isn’t. Securities counsel with specific crypto experience should review every token warrant before it’s signed.
- Double-counting with equity airdrops. See the clause above. Fix it in the warrant itself.
- Mismatched lockups. If the warrant doesn’t peg lockup to network tokenomics, warrant holders may end up with tokens they can freely trade while other equity holders are locked up — which is unfair and looks bad.
- Missing the Howey disclaimer. Regulatory treatment of tokens is evolving. At minimum, the warrant should say so explicitly.
- No fallback for no-TGE scenarios. If the company decides not to launch a token, the warrant should expire cleanly with no residual claims.
How this fits into the founder journey
The token warrant is a special-purpose instrument for a specific kind of startup. It doesn’t replace any of the four Series Seed documents — it sits alongside them as a fifth document for web3 companies. If you’re a traditional startup, you’ll never see one. If you’re a web3 founder, you’ll see one in every seed round you raise from crypto-native investors. Either way, it’s a reminder that crypto fundraising lives in a regulatory gray zone, and careful lawyering is not optional.
Get this reviewed by Montague Law
Working on a deal? Montague Law drafts, reviews, and customizes startup legal documents on a flat fee designed for founders — not at the hourly rates of the big firms whose work product this library is designed to match. If you want this form tailored to your company, or a second set of eyes before you sign, email John.
This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. If you’re about to sign something that matters, talk to a lawyer — preferably one who’s seen at least a hundred of these.