A fair unlock is if those who bought tokens in October get to sell them before those who bought in March. Those who bought in October took the greatest risk. Trump wasn’t even re-elected. Yet, we committed money to the plan. If everyone’s tokens get freed up at the same exact time, it would be a great insult to those VERY early risk takers. Everyone who bought tokens before November 5 should be reposting this all over until the WLFI team hears us.
30 Likes
You’re right! Those who bought before the election took the greatest risk but RISK IS RISK
If the entire project is to crumble, it doesn’t matter when you bought everybody whose finance is involved will lose it
The project wouldn’t take that turn!
RISK IS RISK , Brother 
5 Likes
Risk is Risk when the company has no money or political clout. By the end of the first presale the company had over $200 million and an elected President. There was NO risk for the second presale. Project was fully funded, and more.
4 Likes
The risk is the same, the moment of entering neither decreases nor increases the risk. The amount with which you enter if the risk increases or decreases.
But are you seriously thinking about selling? Do you have the blessed fortune of being touched with the magic wand and are you thinking about selling? 
Here it is not only WLFI, here something bigger is brewing and who knows if a new ecosystem. The one who sells will hardly be able to enter again 
, think about it and the idea matures
El riesgo es el mismo, el momento de entrar ni disminuye ni aumenta el riesgo. La cantidad con la que se entra si aumenta o disminuye el riesgo.
Pero en serio estás pensando en vender ?, tienes la bendita fortuna de ser tocado con la varita mágica y estás pensando en vender?
Aquí no es solo WLFI, aquí se está gestando algo más grande y quien sabe si un nuevo ecosistema. El que venda difícilmente podrá entrar de nuevo , piénsatelo y madura la idea
7 Likes
Your idea is fare but it would be impossible to make such differentiations in terms tokens date purchased
3 Likes
following your logic, the founders should be able to sell before october presale buyers.
sounds great, they can go ahead and dump 50 billion insider and commmunity funding tokens and dilute october buyers to .001 instead of the .01.
lmao
4 Likes
The risk was that the .05ers also invested not knowing if the token would ever be transferrable. Thats risk! So you are absolutely wrong!
4 Likes
There was no risk for the second pre-sale. If Trump doesn’t get elected this project is DOA, and NO second pre-sale and NO GENIUS act.
2 Likes
El riesgo para mí es el mismo, este valor tanto antes como después de la elección de Trump se presentaba con valor 0, bloqueado y poco o nada transparente en cuanto a su objetivo, más parecía un donativo que un proyecto como el que se destapa ahora frente a nuestros ojos. Además nadie sabía si los tokens se terminarían antes o después de la elecciones presidenciales . Por esto somos tan pocos y la preventa dura tanto tiempo,
The risk for me is the same, this value both before and after Trump’s election was presented with 0 value, blocked and little or nothing transparent in terms of its objective, it looked more like a donation than a project like the one that is now uncovered before our eyes. In addition, no one knew if the tokens would run out before or after the presidential elections. That’s why we are so few and the pre-sale lasts so long,
2 Likes
You’re mistaken. Risk is risk. The second-round presale was clearly labeled as ‘non-transferable’ - its terms were identical to the first-round presale! The rules were equally binding for all participants.If the entire project is to crumble, it doesn’t matter when you bought everybody whose finance is involved will lose it.RISK IS RISK , Brother
4 Likes
Risks are not the same. If Trump does not get elected there would be no WLFI and no GENIUS act. Those who bought after Trumps election took no risk. Why do you think they raised it to .05. Because WLFI knew you were no longer taking a risk, but riding a wave.
1 Like
Nonsense logic
I was in the first round, bought at 0.015. But I still want a fair launch where presalers, all of them, is subject to a linear vesting schedule. Otherwise we’ll see an incredibly steep dump that it may never recover from.
Bought early? Took “more risk”? Bullshit, you got in early and should consider yourself lucky. Now let the team cook and build out a product line. Only then do you get to make some serious money.
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter when you bought, when you entered. We are all supporting the project at different times. The benefits, losses, regulations, demands, should (and so it is) be for everyone equally.
7 Likes
with your logic, founder should be the first person to sell. Then Oct investor to sell, then March invester… 
You are so scare and wish to sell the token earlier then others.
Bro, pls dont invest more than what you can suffer from the losses. Its risk management.. Jz my 2 cents. Thanks.
2 Likes
Mind me if i am wrong but there was no risk at all because it was not a investment in the first place they made that very clear
2 Likes
To be fully decentralized and transparent, I think 100% token unlock is reasonable. Investors should have the right to do whatever they want with their tokens. The percentage of unlocking or the vesting schedule doesn’t matter—what truly matters is the development plan and a solid foundation. A project should be built for 5 years, 10 years, or even decades, not just a few weeks or months!
2 Likes
Whole heartedly agree. All this fuss over trying to have control over who can sell what when is just a distraction. Lets see what this platform does!
There was a risk that the company would not succeed. If Trump does not get elected, or worse, this would not succeed, and investors would lose their money. Once Trump got elected, this company was off to the racers. And, anyone buying after the election wasn’t taking much of a risk.
Ok but People bought at second presale paid 3 times the price so seems fair enough to me
2 Likes