“Controlled Genesis: 10,000 WLFI Each to Boost Trust and Price”

[subrata_dhar]

WLFI Genesis Allocation: Balanced Community Empowerment

Revised Community Proposal

As WLFI unlocks transferability and enters the public trading phase, it’s crucial to reward our early supporters — while ensuring a healthy token economy and long-term sustainability.

-–

Proposal:

Distribute 10,000 WLFI tokens to each of the 85,000 verified early supporters from the Community Pool.

This adjustment provides:

A meaningful reward to early adopters

Lower immediate circulating supply

Potential for stronger and more stable market performance

Strategic reserves for future growth and community initiatives

-–

Why This Version Makes Sense

Meaningful Recognition

10,000 WLFI per supporter still offers real value and appreciation for their early belief and participation.

Reduced Supply = Stronger Market

Only 850 million WLFI (under 1% of total supply) would be unlocked, protecting against inflation and excessive selling pressure.

Future-Proofing Governance & Ecosystem

Reserving most of the 30B Community Pool allows future contributors, developers, stakers, and governance participants to also benefit.

-–

Revised Core Parameters

Parameter Value

Total Community Pool 30,000,000,000 WLFI (30%)

Eligible Wallets 85,000 (KYC-verified)

WLFI per Wallet 10,000 WLFI

Tokens Distributed 850,000,000 WLFI

Remaining in Pool 29,150,000,000 WLFI

Claim Conditions KYC re-screening via Sumsub

Optional DAO Conditions Possible staking lock-up

-–

Call to Action

Let’s honor our early supporters while protecting WLFI’s future.

Vote YES to distribute 10,000 WLFI per verified early supporter, ensuring a fair start and a more sustainable market trajectory.

[VI3]

I can’t support any large scale disbursement on a per-wallet basis. It pointlessly multiplies rewards to individuals that purchased tokens into multiple wallets over individuals that purchased the same total number of tokens into a single wallet. I can’t see any good reason to do that. A reward disbursement should be based on the number tokens in each wallet.

[subrata_dhar]

Thank you for your thoughtful input — it’s an important point and a valid concern.

The goal of this proposal is to acknowledge verified early supporters equally for their participation and commitment during the protocol’s early phase, regardless of the amount they invested. Many joined when there was no price, no guarantees, and no certainty. Their support helped WLFI reach this stage.

This proposal aims to celebrate contribution, not capital — by distributing a symbolic yet meaningful amount (10,000 WLFI) per verified supporter, not based on wealth, but on early belief and ecosystem participation.

While it’s true that some users may have used multiple wallets, the KYC verification process (via Sumsub) helps minimize abuse and ensures only legitimate users are rewarded. Also, limiting the distribution to just 850M WLFI keeps the overall circulating supply low, which helps protect the market.

That said, I completely agree that future proposals could explore staking- or holding-based rewards, which would reward long-term commitment and higher participation. For now, this one is about community recognition in the most inclusive way possible.

Appreciate your feedback — and always open to collaboration for refining community-first solutions!

[xwezel_wezel]

Bought with multiple wallets? they also got kyc multiple times?

[EarthlingLouke]

Well, it’s still the same scenario if someone bought to a different wallets, 10k or full unlocking they’re gonna sell all their holdings. Some of your points are logically incorrect though, as wallets were being verified/kyced to maintain fairness and SEC regulated so having multiple wallets are not guaranteed. Let’s focus on 10k unlocking, if circulating supply is under 1 billion, it has the possiblity to reach Trump coin all time high 73 dollars or more and price stability is manageable. Now if they released 35 billions or 25 billions supply the price will likely put us to 0.8 to 2 dollars. Imagine your future earnings if we follow 10k initial unlocking. Massive!

[subrata_dhar]

Thanks for your thoughts — I understand where you’re coming from. But I think some points might be misunderstood.

Yes, it’s true that people with multiple wallets could still sell after unlocking — but that risk exists regardless of the unlocking method. What matters more is the initial circulating supply and how much market pressure it creates. A 10k unlocking strategy keeps the early circulating supply low, giving the token time to build momentum, attract new investors, and maintain price stability — which benefits everyone long-term.

Also, many wallets went through KYC and verification, which helps limit abuse and maintain fairness — just like in SEC-regulated launches. So having multiple wallets doesn’t guarantee extra reward or influence.

Your example of Trump coin is a good one — the reason it could reach that price is because of limited supply and strong community support early on. If we unlock 25–35 billion from day one, it risks flooding the market, which would heavily suppress price.

So let’s not just think short-term. With a controlled 10k unlocking, future earnings potential grows massively, and it creates a healthier ecosystem for long-term holders.

Let’s build smart — not just fast.

[subrata_dhar]

point. It’s true that using multiple wallets could seem like an unfair advantage. But just to clarify — during the KYC process, many wallets were indeed individually verified, and approval wasn’t always guaranteed. So even if someone used multiple wallets, they also had to pass multiple KYCs, which took time, effort, and sometimes risk.

Our goal with this proposal is to reward early contributors fairly, regardless of how they structured their purchases — as long as they followed the process. I fully understand your view though, and I’m open to adjustments if it helps build stronger consensus

[greg888.eth]

Yes, it’s an interesting proposition.

[VI3]

@subrata_dhar

So even if someone used multiple wallets, they also had to pass multiple KYCs, which took time, effort, and sometimes risk.

Robbing a bank also takes time, effort, and sometimes risk. Should it then be rewarded by the people who’s money was stolen? Because that’s what this is: a grift that cheats honest supporters. I apologize for posting the same thing here as I have in other threads, but there are so many threads on this topic currently.

In the very early days of the sale, I watched the transactions roll through and saw some interesting things. Long strings of identical tiny transactions, so small you wondered how they were worth the gas fee, repeated over and over. We talked about it on the forum and the Discord at the time. Here is a screenshot I took at the time of what I’m talking about:

This is just one brief snapshot obviously, but you would see identical tiny amount like this, in this case 176.54 WLFI, less than $3, repeated over and over, line after line, page after page, all to different wallets. Why? The only sensible conclusion was that these people hoped to be able to later exploit per-wallet airdrops. They weren’t supporters, they were shysters. I felt at the time that it undermined the support of actual participants, and I still feel that way. Any disbursement plan that is on a per-wallet basis rewards these grifters at the expense of honest supporters, and if it comes to a vote I will oppose any such measure.

[subrata_dhar]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I truly respect your passion for fairness and the integrity of the project. It’s clear you’ve been engaged from the very beginning, and that vigilance helps keep projects honest — so I appreciate your voice here.

You’re right to be concerned about what appeared to be suspicious behavior early on. Many of us noticed similar patterns and were concerned too. That’s exactly why KYC and wallet verification later became part of the process — to help prevent such exploits from receiving any future benefits. So while some attempted to game the system, it’s not accurate to say they’ve succeeded or will necessarily profit.

The 10k per-wallet unlocking idea isn’t about rewarding those actors — it’s about carefully managing early supply to avoid dumping pressure, build organic growth, and create a healthier price structure from the start. It’s designed to protect genuine long-term holders, not to reward manipulation.

That said, I totally understand the fear of unfair reward, and I believe the final disbursement strategy should include proper filtering and criteria to eliminate ineligible or obviously abusive wallets. That way, we can strike a balance: preventing abuse, while also encouraging early ecosystem health and rewarding real supporters like yourself.

Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution — even disagreement, when done respectfully like this, helps move us toward a better outcome for everyone.

[arshiafaradj]

Repetetive proposal. There shall be no “boost”. Perhaps there is no grasp of economic mindset.

[zullo1]

Im not understanding your proposal. Are you stating to only unlock 10k per wallet? If so, that would be riduculous and I vote NO.

[subrata_dhar]

Thanks for your honest feedback — and I totally understand your concern. Let me clarify, because I think there may be a misunderstanding.

The idea isn’t to limit the total unlock permanently to 10k per wallet. Rather, it’s a staged unlocking strategy, where each verified wallet initially gets access to only 10,000 tokens, and the rest of the holdings are unlocked gradually over time.

The goal here is not to punish large holders — it’s to avoid overwhelming the market with massive sell pressure on day one, which could hurt everyone, including genuine long-term supporters like you. By starting with a smaller circulating supply, we give the project a better chance at building price momentum, investor confidence, and a healthier ecosystem.

Other major launches have used similar approaches to stabilize early trading and protect early supporters.

[E_S1]

With respect, how can you be sure that these many wallets belong to one person?! Unless everyone has a KYC. So it is fair that every KYC is rewarded. What do you think?

[VI3]

What I’m pretty certain of is that the likelihood of multiple unaffiliated individuals simultaneously executing transactions for the exact same minuscule amount, down to the hundredth of a token, is quite low. To say nothing of the likelihood of that scenario playing out repeatedly.

[Birten_Demirov]

YES it good idea WLFI to the moon

[subrata_dhar]

Thank you — and I really appreciate the respectful tone.

You make a valid point. It’s true that we can’t be 100% sure which wallets belong to the same person unless there is strict KYC for every wallet. That’s why I personally believe that any wallet that passed KYC/verification fairly should be treated equally — no matter how big or small the holding.

If a wallet went through the proper process and followed the rules, then it’s only fair it receives the same unlocking as others. That supports transparency, fairness, and trust in the project.

At the same time, to protect the ecosystem, we just need to be cautious of any behavior that tries to exploit the system. So a balanced unlocking model, tied to verified wallets, could reward real supporters while keeping the launch sustainable.

Thanks again for raising this — thoughtful discussions like this help make better decisions for the whole community.

[zullo1]

I cannot support this. An initial 10k unlock is garbage. Vote NO!

[subrata_dhar]

Totally respect your view — and I hear your frustration.

This proposal was meant to find a middle ground between rewarding early supporters and protecting WLFI’s price stability by keeping the initial circulating supply low.

But I understand that for some, 10k WLFI might feel underwhelming — especially if expectations were higher based on early involvement or comparisons to other distributions. That’s completely fair.

That’s why feedback like yours is valuable. Maybe we can work together on a refined version — something that blends meaningful rewards with smart tokenomics.

Appreciate your passion for WLFI — we all want the same thing: a strong, fair, and successful launch.

[Elgrande1972]

Now it is more understandable that many in these places want the community to opt for equally distributing the same amount of tokens to everyone in case of extra distribution of tokens, without taking into account the initial investment. You want this because it benefits you a lot, real scammers, I’m with you.

Ahora es más entendible que muchos por estos lares quieran que la comunidad se decante por repartir de forma igualitaria a todos la misma cantidad de tokens en caso de reparto extra de tokens , sin tener en cuenta la inversión inicial. Desean esto porque les beneficia y mucho , auténticos estafadores, estoy con usted.