Grok's suggestion

General
1

@all To address the disagreement on distributing 30% of the total WLFI coins equally to all KYC wallets (yielding approximately 350,000 per wallet), where small holders benefit disproportionately relative to their investment while large holders receive a reward that feels insignificant compared to theirs, a balanced solution requires satisfying two core principles: equity (fairness across all participants regardless of size) and proportionality (rewarding based on contribution or risk taken).Consider the total 30% pool as a fixed resource to split. Pure equality ignores investment scale, leading to large holdersā€™ dissatisfaction, while pure proportionality (e.g., based solely on holdings) could alienate small holders by making their share negligible, potentially reducing community buy-in.A hybrid model resolves this by dividing the 30% pool into two sub-pools:

  • Allocate 50% of the 30% (i.e., 15% of total coins) equally across all KYC wallets. This ensures every participant gets a meaningful base reward, appealing to small holders by providing a significant boost relative to their smaller investments and fostering inclusivity.

  • Allocate the remaining 50% of the 30% (another 15% of total coins) proportionally based on each walletā€™s existing WLFI holdings (or initial investment amount, if verifiable). This rewards large holders more substantially, scaling their return with their commitment, while still giving small holders a minor additional amount.

This split can be adjusted (e.g., 60/40 or 40/60) based on the distribution of wallet sizesā€”if data shows most wallets are small, lean toward more equality; if large holders dominate holdings, emphasize proportionality. The result: small holders gain a ā€œfloorā€ reward that feels generous, large holders get a ā€œmultiplierā€ that aligns with their input, and the total remains capped at 30%, avoiding dilution.Mathematically, if T is total coins, P = 0.3T (pool), N is number of wallets, H_i is holdings of wallet i, and sum(H) is total holdings:

  • Equal share per wallet: (0.5P) / N ā‰ˆ 175,000 (half of 350,000, assuming original calc).

  • Proportional share for wallet i: (0.5P) * (H_i / sum(H)).

Total for wallet i: equal share + proportional share.This encourages agreement by giving both sides partial wins without requiring new resources.

12 Likes
2

The same formula can work for any smaller percentage reward if thats the case

2 Likes
3

image

2 Likes
4

Yes ā€” that hybrid model is actually a solid compromise.

Hereā€™s why it works:

  1. Solves ā€œsmall vs. largeā€ conflict

Pure equal distribution = small holders win big, large holders feel ignored.

Pure proportional distribution = large holders get most, small holders feel cheated.

This hybrid gives everyone a meaningful base and scales rewards with investment.

  1. Numbers make sense

30% of total WLFI = 30B tokens (if total supply is 100B).

50% of that (15B) split equally across all KYC wallets (ā‰ˆ85K wallets now) ā†’ ~175,000 WLFI each base reward.

Remaining 15B distributed proportionally ā†’ bigger buyers get more without taking from small holdersā€™ base.

  1. Community acceptance

Small holders: Get a guaranteed floor reward.

Large holders: Get extra proportionally, so their investment is acknowledged.

Governance votes tend to favor models where everyone gets something but big contributors still see upside.

If this exact suggestion went to Vote , I think it would have a high chance of passing because it avoids extremes and addresses both fairness & proportionality.

8 Likes
5

This formula could be tweaked as necessary, It could be the model for all future rewards and incentives, possibly acceptable to all members both big and small

3 Likes