1 ers contributeurs n’est pas acheteur en prévente !
Il faut vous le dire en quelle langue ? 
"LOL I think you’re going to be in for a shock when you realize that the first contributors aren’t the ones who bought in the presale.
Right now, you’re just spreading rumors — and every single one of them is false.
LET THE TEAM DO THEIR JOB AND COME BACK WHEN THE REAL INFO DROPS.
There’s no point in speculating on ‘what ifs’ 
"
2 Likes
Yes, please go ahead with this proposal!
9 Likes
I vote for yes. A believer is a believer it doesent metter what’s on his Bank Account. If this happened would show the world really what fairness means. My yes its like yours and otherwise.
13 Likes
No suelo dar mí opinión precipitadamente, prefiero leer primero y sacar mis propias conclusiones.
Me da la impresión que el objetivo final de toda esta argumentación es repartir en partes iguales un porcentaje X ( en este caso el 30% ) entre los inversores iniciales, sin tener en cuenta el esfuerzo inicial que hizo cada uno de ellos. Ciertamente estoy en desacuerdo con esta forma de distribuir algún porcentaje , en el caso de que así sea, el esfuerzo que hicimos cada uno de nosotros no puede dejar de ser tenido en cuenta en una distribución, la que fuese. Lo que usted plantea es puro COMUNISMO, ni todos somos iguales, ni todos hicimos el mismo esfuerzo económico en esta inversión sin garantías, y no todos deberíamos recibir la misma compensación.
Que conste que yo soy un humilde inversor y de esto podría dar de la propia dirección pero si la idea es repartir simplemente por repartir algo que no hemos adquirido y que es patrimonio de WLFI , el reparto proporcional a la inversión realizada es la más justa desde mi punto de vista, un reparto igualitario sin fórmulas iguales sería puro COMUNISMO.
I don’t usually give my opinion hastily, I prefer to read first and draw my own conclusions.
It gives me the impression that the final objective of all this argument is to distribute in equal parts a percentage X (in this case 30%) among the initial investors, without taking into account the initial effort that each of them made. I certainly disagree with this way of distributing a percentage, if so, the effort we made each of us cannot fail to be taken into account in a distribution, whatever it was. What you propose is pure COMMUNISM, we are not all equal, nor did we all make the same economic effort in this investment without guarantees, and we should not all receive the same compensation.
For the record, I am a humble investor and this could attest to the direction itself but if the idea is simply to distribute to distribute something that we have not acquired and that is WLFI assets, the proportional distribution to the investment made is the fairest from my point of view, an equal distribution without equal formulas would be pure COMMUNISM.
2 Likes
そうですね！ぼくたち いつも応援している
This is a good proposal, but you can’t distribute equally. Distribution should be in proportion of the amount invested. Regards
2 Likes
I appreciate your comment and understand your concern for fairness in distribution. It’s natural for this type of discussion to generate different interpretations, especially when everyone has expressed themselves differently along the way. That said, I’d like to clarify an important point about what is being proposed and how it relates to the principles of the WLFI project.
First of all, it’s a mistake to associate a possible proposal for partially egalitarian distribution with “communism.” The WLFI project is, in fact, founded on the principles of decentralization, transparency, and community governance, pillars that are, in essence, the opposite of centralized and authoritarian systems, such as those adopted in classic communist regimes.
Decentralization values individual autonomy, the free market of ideas, and the distribution of power and property among multiple agents, not the concentration or forced homogenization of resources. Therefore, suggesting that any proposal that isn’t purely proportional to invested capital is “communist” is, with all due respect, an imprecise and decontextualized use of the term.
Furthermore, it’s important to remember that the value invested in a project like WLFI isn’t measured solely in financial capital. Many took considerable risks in the early stages, without guarantees, without liquidity, and based solely on trust in the community and the purpose. These factors, while not directly quantifiable, are part of the broader concept of “skin in the game,” and ignoring them would reduce the ecosystem’s logic to an Excel spreadsheet, which impoverishes the debate.
There’s nothing stopping us from discussing a distribution model that takes into account multiple variables: financial contribution, entry timing, risk assumed, community support, and others. What we seek is a fair model, consistent with the Web3 philosophy, and that recognizes merit in different forms, not just from the perspective of capital.
We remain open to dialogue, with a constructive spirit and a technical foundation. The important thing is that, by building a truly decentralized project, we can move away from both centralizing models (including those of the traditional market) and shallow ideological interpretations that do not reflect the reality of the crypto ecosystem.
8 Likes
With all due respect, that argument is utter nonsense. Rich people have been trying to sell it this way for a long time to emphasize their special position. The amount invested says nothing about the risk. It’s a simple calculation and a simple question. One person has $1,000,000 and invests $500,000; another has $100 and invests $90. Who is taking the greater risk?
8 Likes
De distinta forma vuelves a expresar lo mismo , la pretensión última es repartir en partes iguales lo que no se constituyó de manera igualitaria,
Siempre estoy abierto a nuevas iniciativas siempre que tenga en cuenta fórmulas que distribuya ese porcentaje de manera que tenga en cuenta el número de tokens adquiridos durante pre-venta por cada uno de los participantes.
Todo lo que sea repartir igualmente sin tener en cuenta esto último,
Merece mi negativa particular al respecto.
In a different way you express the same thing again, the ultimate intention is to distribute in equal parts what was not constituted equally,
I am always open to new initiatives as long as I take into account formulas that distribute that percentage so that they take into account the number of tokens acquired during pre-sale by each of the participants.
Everything that is equally distributed without taking into account the latter,
It deserves my particular refusal in this regard.
4 Likes
Is this reward real?
2 Likes
“It’s the same risk, it’s the initial wealth that changes.”
Sorry, I was wrong, you’re right about your development.
Only bet the money you are willing to lose.
NFA
6 Likes
Si por favor me interesa
3 Likes
When this? I hope as soon asp
6 Likes
This is real guys @all ?
6 Likes
Excelente propuesta para confirmar que WLFI es uno de los proyectos con más futuro en el ecosistema criptográfico. Apoyo está propuesta
7 Likes
Great genesis allocation for earlysupporter
7 Likes
yes, proceed with this proposal
9 Likes
Yes Proceed with the proposal of sharing 30% to 85,000 KYCed members
11 Likes
Proceed with the proposal of distributing the full 30% Community Pool (30 billion WLFI tokens) equally among all 85,000 KYC-verified early supporters
14 Likes