Hybrid Airdrop Distribution Model: Equal + Proportional Split

General
1

Hybrid Airdrop Distribution Model: Equal + Proportional Split

There’s ongoing debate about how to distribute the planned 30% WLFI airdrop fairly.

Equal-only: every verified KYC wallet gets the same amount (~350,000 WLFI). This heavily benefits small holders but leaves large holders feeling under-rewarded relative to their investment.

Proportional-only: rewards based on holdings or presale investment. This favors large holders but makes the reward for small holders almost negligible.

Proposed Hybrid Model:
Split the 30% airdrop pool into two equal parts:

  1. 15% (half) — Distributed equally across all verified KYC wallets (base reward for everyone).

  2. 15% (half) — Distributed proportionally based on each wallet’s WLFI holdings or presale investment.

Example:
If there are ~85,000 wallets, the equal share would be about 175,000 WLFI per wallet from the first half. The second half scales according to your stake, giving larger holders a bigger proportional reward while still giving small holders something extra.

Benefits:

Small holders get a meaningful “floor” reward.

Large holders are rewarded for their higher commitment.

Balances fairness and proportionality while staying within the 30% cap.

Feedback Requested:
Should we adopt this 50/50 hybrid split? Or adjust it (e.g., 60/40 or 40/60) based on wallet distribution?

223 Likes
2

This is actually not a bad idea, though when did that 30% became a certain airdrop for early adopters? in the end i don’t think we will receive the 30% no matter the proposals.

29 Likes
4

True, the exact mechanics aren’t finalized yet — but the 30% community allocation is confirmed. If even part of that goes to early adopters, a balanced equal + proportional model could help make the distribution fair for everyone.@all

11 Likes
5

Pienso que se tiene que cumplir con el mandato fundamental de repartir el 30 % por igual a los 85k holders …

7 Likes
6

Just a question. Did the big investors and the small ones know that there was a reward when they invested in the project? I want a straight answer, of course the answer will be (no) because each person invested his amount with the amount of coins he received only, whether a large or small amount, without knowing about the reward. Why now when I suggest distributing it equally, many people did not like it. Why are you trying to reduce the amount of small money owners? Even though they are big money investors, isn’t your greed enough? Most small wallets can flourish in their lives and the lives of those around them, why do you stand in their way? Isn’t your money and large investments enough for you? I repeat again, life is fleeting and we will leave it one day and leave all our possessions behind us

26 Likes
7

Yes this souns more fair for everyone. I like it!

8 Likes
8

:no_entry: Same as 47 USD1 airdrop :no_entry:

12 Likes
9

It’s so childish. Asset and economic markets are self-regulating. Whether it’s large or small, the stronger wins. This is liberal democracy and decentralization.

6 Likes
10

Greetings!

First and foremost, thank you for being open to feedback and suggesting great ideas.

I believe the equal distribution model is the right thing to do. Whilst some may argue only the first X should receive the distribution I feel that may be greed, we want to change the world, make it a better place. I believe sins such as greed is the epitome of what we don’t want to be.

9 Likes
11

说的很对，支持公平分配，不要再把这个变成资本的游戏

4 Likes
12

I get your point — free markets do reward the strongest players. But community allocations aren’t the market yet, they’re a one-time distribution meant to start the market on the right foot. A fair split between equal and proportional rewards still keeps decentralization intact while making sure more people stay engaged and invested in the project’s growth.

7 Likes
13

You’re right — no one invested with a guaranteed reward in mind, and the equal share approach absolutely benefits small holders in a meaningful way. My suggestion isn’t about reducing their benefit, but about finding a balance that keeps everyone motivated to support the project long-term. If large holders feel completely overlooked, some may leave, which could hurt the overall ecosystem. A hybrid model still gives small wallets a strong boost, but also acknowledges the risk and capital big investors put in. In the end, the goal is to grow WLFI together so that all holders, small or big, see their lives improve.

6 Likes
14

Not a bad idea. Fair enough!

2 Likes
15

This proposal rewards early investors including the small investors. This is actually better than other earlier proposals. Let early investors, including small investors, to rip big for believing in project.

10 Likes
16

Even if the 30% allocation does not materialize for the 85000 of us! this formula could be applied to all future rewards and incentives! I think this may help to find agreement amongst us all!

3 Likes
17

No airdrop. Not everyone can recieve airdrops in their jurisdiction. Needs to be another way.

2 Likes
18

Prefiero ir todo sea equitativo y solo se cumpla con la distribución del 30 % de los tokens por igual…

3 Likes
19

Thankyou for your best suggestion brother

4 Likes
21

Why do you treat as equivalent holdings and presale investments? Holdings ought to be the defining factor, and NOT investment. Between two wallets holding the same amount, the one who invested in the first batch invested less but took a greater risk.

5 Likes
22

Considering my total coins are 1.2k WLFI , I believe that makes no difference for myself :confused:

Anyway … let’s vote

5 Likes