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

General
23

“With respect, calling others ‘scammers’ just because they support equal distribution isn’t fair. The principle here is that if we’re talking about extra tokens beyond the agreed allocations, then distributing them equally can be seen as rewarding all community members equally for their participation, not for their initial investment size. Some people see it as a way to encourage inclusivity and avoid whales getting an outsized share. It’s about perspective, not personal gain.”

This way, you:

Stay respectful (no counter-insults).

Shift the focus to the idea, not the person.

Show there’s a rationale behind the approach.

4 Likes
24

I agree with this analysis. And I prefer this view. Respect, acceptance of different perspectives, and fairness reinforce justice.

3 Likes
25

Thank you for sharing your perspective with such respect. I truly value the diversity of views in our community — it’s what helps us find the most balanced and fair solutions. Fairness and justice are exactly what we should aim for, and your input reinforces that. :folded_hands:

5 Likes
26

its will be good move for all early birds

2 Likes
27

Si. me parece bien la propuesta!!!

1 Like
28

YES to distribute 10,000 WLFI per verified early supporter.

3 Likes
29

10000개도 없는 홀더주제에 탐욕만 많아서는!! 개당가격이 낮아질뿐이야!

1 Like
30

짐, 우려하시는 점 이해합니다. 홀더 수가 1만 명 미만이라도, 단순히 탐욕으로만 보는 것보다 프로젝트가 어떻게 성장하고 가치를 만들어 가는지에 집중하는 것이 중요합니다. 토크노믹스와 전략이 탄탄하다면 시간이 지나도 가격은 충분히 지지될 수 있습니다.

32

I agree with you, although I didn’t receive 47 USD1, I don’t know why I met the requirements, my KYC is verified, at least it’s due to the fact that I didn’t vote for said proposal?

2 Likes
33

Yes, it’s a good idea. Support who believes in the project from the start. Having the early supporters identities makes it easier to airdrop 10k WLFI token per person instead of wallet ID.

Good idea

4 Likes
34

yes it will be fantastic

3 Likes
35

With all due respect, I think it would not be bad for him to read again the post to which he replied, and thus he will better understand my answer.

However, for me, he is a scammer who buys small quantities and sends to different addresses because he read about the 30% distribution that he tried to talk about in this forum. His only interest is to have many portfolios and try to benefit from the equal distribution of that 30%.

So I still think that the distribution should be in relation to each investment, everything that is not this is to give more to the one who could least and less to the one who could the most.

His argument that having invested for the distribution should prevail is very vague and even more vague when there is evidence that purchases of small amount were opened to send to different wallets, which could only seek an objective, maximize profits with the minimum money, convincing the group that 30% should be distributed equally, something with which I disagree as I explained

Con el debido respeto , pienso no estaría mal que leyera de nuevo el post al que contestó, y así entenderá mejor mi respuesta.

No obstante, para mí , es un estafador quien compra pequeñas cantidades y envía a direcciones distintas porque leyó lo del reparto del 30% del que tentó se habla en este foro. Su único interés es tener muchas carteras e intentar beneficiarse del reparto igualitario de ese 30%.

Así que sigo pensando que el reparto debe ser en relación a cada inversión , todo lo que no sea esto es dar más al que menos pudo y menos al que más pudo .

Su argumentación de que se debe primar el haber invertido para el reparto es muy vaga y más vaga aún cuando hay constancia de que se aperturaron compras de poco montante para enviara a distintas billeteras, que solo podría buscar un objetivo, maximizar con el mínimo dinero las ganancias, convenciendo al grupo de que el 30% se debe repartir de forma igualitaria, cosa con la que discrepo como expuse

3 Likes
36

YES,10 000 WLFI.Yes, it’s an interesting proposition.

4 Likes
37

I understand your concerns, and I agree that any distribution method must minimize abuse. That’s why my proposal specifically ties eligibility to KYC-verified wallets, so a single individual can’t claim multiple allocations without verification.

The equal-per-wallet model isn’t about rewarding the “least” or punishing the “most,” but about recognizing early verified supporters equally for taking the risk of joining before WLFI had price or certainty. Investment size rewards can still be addressed later through staking, governance incentives, or tiered programs — but this specific proposal is meant to honor participation during WLFI’s formative stage, while also keeping circulating supply low for price stability.

Controlled distribution now, paired with targeted rewards later, protects both fairness and long-term value.

3 Likes
38

Thank you for seeing the value in the 10,000 WLFI idea. The goal is to reward early supporters meaningfully while keeping circulation tight for a stronger market start. Your support means a lot for building a fair and sustainable launch.

2 Likes
39

I would be extremely interested to know how many people all wanting to receive 10000 tokens for participation are the ones that bought $5 worth (300 tokens) and are hoping for a nice bonus of 10,000 now, and somehow think that’s fair compared to people that bought 10,000 , 20,000 or 100,000 tokens

You can’t just make equal distributions for every wallet and try and call it fair as “participation” , no matter your rational.

It makes no sense and completely unfair to someone to boost one persons wallet by 3000% of its value and another persons bonus is only equal to 10%

Then you factor in people with multiple $5 wallets all getting the same bonus and now tyey could potentially have larger holdings then someone who invested much more initially

any distribution of tokens need to be reflective of the wallet value, not just give every wallet an equal amount for participating. I’m sure it’s an amazing get rich quick thought for the small investors who put $5 in, but there’s no logic in calling it fair because of participation

6 Likes
40

I understand your frustration — if your KYC is verified and you met the requirements, you should have been eligible regardless of how you voted. It might be worth checking directly with the support team or DAO moderators to confirm your status, as distribution shouldn’t be tied to voting choices. It’s possible that voting was required as part of the eligibility process, especially if it was mentioned in the proposal details. Sometimes these conditions aren’t communicated as clearly as they should be, so you may have met all other requirements without realizing this one was needed. I’d recommend checking with the team to confirm — if it was just a procedural step, there’s still a chance it can be resolved so you receive what you’re entitled to.

3 Likes
41

I’m not talking about kyc or anything I’m entitled too. I’m referring to the proposal of distributing 10,000 tokens equally amongst every wallet regardless of the wallets initial investment and somehow believing it rationalizing that it’s what you call fair due to participation. Some invested $5, others invested $1000. You can’t give both an equal amount of tokens.

You can reward both with a bonus for being an early supporter , but that reward needs to be reflective of the initial investment

7 Likes
42

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

2 Likes
43

I understand and appreciate the intention behind wanting to reward participation, but I believe fairness also means recognizing the scale of each supporter’s contribution. Someone who invested $5 and someone who invested $1000 both deserve acknowledgment for being early supporters, but the reward should be proportionate to the initial investment. That way, we value both participation and the level of commitment shown by each member.

3 Likes