Support this proposal.
Thanks for clarifying, I understand your concern.
But this is where I draw the line: reputation and past accusations cannot be the basis for expropriating tokens in a decentralised system. WLFI must rely on verifiable, on-chain evidence. Otherwise we move from rule-based governance to subjective enforcement, and that is far more damaging to the protocol’s integrity than one whale transfer.
And if Justin Sun’s reputation for such behaviour is well known, then the responsibility lies with WLFI’s design. The team should have anticipated this risk and put safeguards in place — stronger vesting, limits on allocation per investor, or dilution mechanisms to avoid whale concentration. This is not unique to crypto: in traditional markets, large funds routinely move billions in equities, and when they sell, the stock price moves. The solution is not to punish the fund retroactively, but to design fairer market structures ex-ante.
If WLFI wants to protect fair markets, the solution is not to single out one investor, but to enforce the same rules consistently for all. Creating exceptions undermines decentralisation and sets a precedent that could threaten every large holder in the future.
Yes, stronger whale controls and governance safeguards are essential going forward. But those must apply prospectively, not retroactively. If Sun manipulates the market, the data will reveal it, and then action can be taken within clear, predefined rules. That’s how WLFI proves its integrity — not by acting on speculation or reputation.