Maybe he didn’t understand me well or I didn’t know how to explain myself, NOT TO HIS OWN, A NO LIKE A BIG HOUSE. When you make a distribution of something, it is not distributed in equal parts because here we do not all contribute equally. There were people who gave 5 or 10 dollars and another 1000 or 2000 …, it is obvious that the participation was not equal therefore if there is any distribution it must be proportional to the participation, so without more. I hope that on this occasion my position was clear
Quizás no me entendió bien o yo no me supe explicar, NO A SU PROPIESTA , UN NO COMO UNA CASA DE GRANDE. Cuando se hace un reparto de algo, no se reparte en partes iguales porque aquí no todos contribuimos igualmente. Hubo personas que dieron 5 o 10 dólares y otros 1000 o 2000 ……, es obvio que la participación no fue igualitaria por lo tanto si existe algún reparto debe ser proporcional a la participación, así sin más . Espero que en esta ocasión quedase clara mi postura
I understand your point — proportional distribution does reflect the level of each person’s contribution, and it’s a fair principle in many contexts. My proposal for equal-per-wallet distribution isn’t meant to ignore that difference, but to recognize early verified supporters equally for the risk they took before WLFI had a price or certainty. Both approaches have merit: proportional rewards honor investment size, while equal rewards honor participation itself. The challenge is finding the balance that the community feels is fairest for this specific stage of WLFI’s journey.
If the proposal calls for the opening of 10,000 tokens, this means that Emma will receive 10,000 tokens, or 1% of the token she purchased, while Adam will receive 100% of the token he purchased and Tommas will receive 10% of the token he purchased.
There is a very clear discrepancy in the openings, which is not very fair, and indicates the randomness of the proposer.
Token openings are fair for everyone when measured by percentage (%) not by specific numbers.
I see your point about the percentage difference, and it’s true that proportional unlocks align more closely with the size of each person’s original purchase. The 10,000 WLFI per verified supporter proposal, however, is meant as a symbolic and equal recognition for taking the early risk of joining before WLFI had any market price or guarantees — not as a replacement for proportional rewards in the long run.
By keeping the initial unlock small and equal, we limit early sell pressure, protect price stability, and still acknowledge every early supporter. Future proposals could certainly introduce percentage-based unlocks or staking rewards so that investment size is also recognized over time. This way, both fairness in participation and fairness in contribution can be balanced. In the last airdrop, everyone received the same amount — someone who bought 1 million WLFI got $47, and someone who bought just 30 WLFI also got $47. This shows that the project values all early supporters equally, rewarding their belief in WLFI rather than the size of their balance.
This is nonsense under the pretext of maintaining prices.
The price is determined by partnerships and WLFI products, as well as supply, demand, and liquidity.
Your suggestion that everyone will receive 10,000 WLFI is the biggest nonsense in crypto history.
Don’t compare the $47 free coins the team offered to WLFI.
Most investors took a risk from the start and paid money to purchase the token, and the unlock process must be fair for everyone without any exceptions.
If you or anyone else wants to receive 10,000 WLFI, you can contact the team and agree with them, but don’t force your proposal on anyone.
We don’t need your justification or explanation. Your proposal serves those who own 10,000 WLFI or less.
While those with the largest balances will be the first to be affected.
Unlocks are measured in percentages, not numbers, otherwise it will be the biggest scam in crypto history.
I advise you to study mathematics.
This seems to be a misunderstanding, and I think the author should clarify it. The explanation about the 10k initial unlocking could have been communicated better.
Some people are claiming that this proposal gives an advantage to lower-tier holders because they believe everyone will receive 10k tokens equally. That’s incorrect.
If you bought 5, 10, or 50 tokens, you will only receive that same amount—not 10k.
If you bought 100k tokens, then yes, you will initially receive 10k, and you’ll continue receiving more during the succeeding unlocks.
This means larger holders will still enjoy future advantages, while smaller holders won’t—unless they continue holding.
It’s clear that some people in this discussion are new to crypto and may not fully understand how this works.
What this proposal is aiming for is to secure a strong initial price at launch and maintain stability over time. Another important factor is that it helps prevent flooding the market by releasing the entire circulating supply all at once.
WLFI is a Trump-backed company, and it has every reason to remain transparent, uphold its reputation, and avoid unnecessary controversies. The team will do everything within their power to keep the price attractive for both the community and private investors.
Screwing over holders is the last thing they would want to do.
