For those who haven’t read the proposal or don’t fully understand it, let me make this clear: this is not simply a staking upgrade. It is a structural shift that quietly consolidates power and reframes control as “community alignment.”
The core mechanism ties governance influence to a 180-day lock. In theory, that rewards commitment. In practice, it advantages those who already hold large amounts of WLFI. The 10M–50M WLFI “Node” and “Super Node” tiers formalize this advantage. This is not neutral design — it creates a capital hierarchy inside governance.
The advertised ~2% APR is funded from the treasury at team discretion, not from a clearly defined, audited revenue stream. That means rewards are not organically generated by protocol performance; they are distributed. If there is no transparent revenue anchor, the yield is effectively subsidized and potentially dilutive.
Requiring voting activity to unlock rewards also does not guarantee better governance. It encourages participation for compensation, not necessarily for informed decision-making. Quantity of votes is not quality of governance.
Perhaps most concerning is the direction this sets. Lockups plus discretionary yield plus tiered privileges begin to resemble a managed system rather than a credibly neutral one. The more governance influence depends on capital size and team-controlled rewards, the less this looks like decentralized governance and the more it resembles structured capital control.
The danger is not in the 2% APR. The danger is in the precedent: formalized power concentration, discretionary reward distribution, and a governance structure that can gradually become insulated from smaller holders — all presented under the language of decentralization.
That is the hidden shift people should be paying attention to.