“Prevent monopoly, ensure decentralization, protect DAO governance.”

General
1

:pushpin: Proposal: Opinion on the Distribution of the 30% Allocation for Early Supporters (Prevent Centralization, Equal Distribution)

The 30% of tokens allocated to early supporters should be distributed fairly and equally to all ~85,000 supporters.
If tokens are given only to specific early supporters or distributed based on existing holdings, the top few percent of whales will end up monopolizing most of the supply. This will inevitably lead to severe centralization and allow a small number of large holders to control DAO governance decisions.

Centralization goes directly against the core value of decentralization that this project stands for. It would simply turn the system into a structure serving the interests of a few whales, ultimately undermining a healthy community and transparent decision-making.
The benefits of WLFI must not be monopolized by a few but should be shared fairly with all participants and humanity as a whole.

The team should not settle for short-term profit like mere merchants, but act as revolutionaries transforming the outdated financial structure.
True success does not lie in enriching a handful of people, but in creating growth and fair opportunities for everyone together.

Let us prevent centralization and ensure equal distribution — your voice and support are crucial to making this possible.

:one: Proposal 1
Distribute 30% of the supply equally to all wallets. This portion will be locked for one year and then gradually unlocked through a vesting schedule.
This ensures broader participation in governance early on and helps gather diverse opinions.

:two: Proposal 2
Distribute 30% of the supply only to those who participate in governance voting, with the entire allocation to be distributed within one year.
This portion will also be locked for one year and then gradually unlocked through a vesting schedule.

Please leave your comments below.

25 Likes
2

:white_check_mark: VOTE: YES
Because there’s only one way to prove that WLFI is truly decentralized.

This proposal represents much more than simply distributing tokens to @all . It’s about protecting the credibility, legitimacy, and future of the WLFI ecosystem.
It’s undoubtedly the most important moment since the project’s inception—a watershed moment that could either consolidate or compromise everything built so far.

:globe_showing_europe_africa: The world is watching.
The market doesn’t forgive signs of disguised centralization, especially after so many projects promised Web3 and failed so ignominiously. And it’s not just the crypto community that’s paying attention:
Global regulatory authorities are closely monitoring the entire distribution and governance structure:

  • :united_states: SEC (USA)
  • :european_union: ESMA (European Union)
  • :germany: BaFin (Germany)
  • :united_kingdom: FCA (UK)
  • :china: CSRC (China)
  • :japan: FSA (Japan)
  • :singapore: MAS (Singapore)
  • :globe_with_meridians: IOSCO (International Organization)

Any sign of favoritism, manipulation, or concentration could jeopardize the WLFI’s credibility and its compatibility with the future global regulatory environment.

If we want a project to be regulation-proof, it needs to prove this from the outset with fair, transparent distribution, and consistency with Web3 principles.

:warning: Lessons from the past: when poor distribution ruined major projects:

:chart_decreasing: ICP (Internet Computer)
It promised massive decentralization and a revolution in the internet, but failed due to concentrated distribution, lack of clarity, and centralized governance. The result: a collapse in trust and price.

:chart_decreasing: EOS
It raised over $4 billion in its ICO, but failed to deliver on its promise of decentralization. Decisions were left in the hands of a small group of dominant validators, and the project lost relevance and community support.

:chart_decreasing: SUSHISWAP (Chef Nomi case)
Despite initial success, the founder sold a significant portion of his tokens prematurely, which generated widespread distrust and nearly destroyed the project, which only survived after the community took control.

:chart_decreasing: SOLANA (initial concentration case)
Although technically advanced, the project still faces criticism and regulatory risks due to the high concentration of tokens among insiders and VCs, which calls into question its neutrality and true decentralization.

:chart_decreasing: ARBITRUM (reverted DAO case)
In 2023, the community approved a governance proposal that the foundation itself decided to ignore, transferring tokens anyway. The result was a crisis of confidence in the project’s DAO model, affecting its legitimacy.

:chart_decreasing: APTOS
It emerged from the legacy of the Diem project (Facebook), with extremely opaque tokenomics, limited airdrops, and favoritism toward insiders, which generated severe criticism and doubts about its neutrality.

All these examples show that good technology or sophisticated marketing are not enough.

Without fair distribution and transparent governance, no project survives the test of time.

:prohibited: WLFI is not a meme and cannot be treated as such.

We are building a protocol with serious ambitions: infrastructure, decentralized governance, and regulatory resilience.
We are not dealing with speculative memecoins, such as:

:dog_face: DOGE — which started as a joke and remains highly concentrated.

:frog: PEPE — with purely speculative dynamics and opaque distribution.

:monkey: SHIBA INU — whose initial supply has also raised several concerns about manipulation.

These assets are fueled by hype and coordinated market movements, and while they may generate temporary gains, they have no commitment to the principles of the real Web3.

WLFI aims for something much bigger:

Creating a real, open, and self-managed DAO.

Distributing power, not capitalizing on hype.

Being a solid foundation for the future of Web3 and decentralized financial infrastructure. Therefore, we must have a clean, fair foundation, consistent with the values we proclaim.

:shield: Why this proposal is the only safe and legitimate way.
The equal distribution of 30% of the Community Pool among the first 85,100 supporters is not only ethical:
It is strategically vital for the sustainability of the WLFI:
It avoids risks of concentration, manipulation, and security structure;
It guarantees real governance, with democratically distributed votes;
It prevents privileged enrichment and hidden favors;
It gives the project natural regulatory protection;
It creates a functional and legitimate DAO, not a simulation controlled by a few.

:speech_balloon: Conclusion
If we want the WLFI to be a global symbol of real, auditable, and secure decentralization, there is only one path:
Fair, equal, and unquestionable distribution. Distributing this 30% equally among early supporters is not just a matter of fairness; it’s an existential requirement in the current crypto landscape.

:ballot_box_with_ballot: I vote YES with awareness, responsibility, and courage.
History is being written now, let it be built by everyone.
I VOTE YES.

13 Likes
3

Vote Yes for proposal 1.

6 Likes
4

Proposal 1.
I think this proposal is more equally and keep the real sense of DAO.
Thank you very much .:

5 Likes
5

Yes I totally agree with the proposal

2 Likes
6

image
image403×369 51 KB

6 Likes
7

This vote is not appropriate, my vote is NO, here the interest of a few seems to be to get income from a small investment to the detriment of those who made a greater investment, arguing that otherwise the whales would control all the wlfi ecosystems.

The background of these proposals, which is not the first in this forum, is to improve the position of those who did not risk anything to the detriment of those who invested more and risked more.

Everything that is not proportional distribution to the investment is trying to establish a communism in the distribution, harming the small ones who invested more for the benefit of the small ones who invested less and equalizing their portfolios when the risk run by some and others were different.

No procede esta votación, mi voto es NO, aquí el interés de unos pocos parece ser el sacar rédito de una inversión pequeña en perjuicio de quienes hicieron una inversión mayor, argumentando que sino las ballenas controlarían todo el ecosistemas wlfi .
El trasfondo de estas propuestas, que no es la primera en este foro, es mejorar la posición de aquellos que no arriesgaron nada en perjuicio de quienes invirtieron más y arriesgaron más.
Todo lo que no sea reparto proporcional a la inversión es pretender instauran un comunismo en el reparto, perjudicando a los pequeños que invirtieron más en beneficio de los pequeños que invirtieron menos e igualando sus carteras cuando el riesgo corrido por unos y por otros fueron diferentes .

2 Likes
8

Dear Holder,
I understand and respect your concerns as an investor who has invested heavily in the WLFI project. However, it’s important to understand that voting “yes” on this proposal doesn’t weaken your position; on the contrary, it’s the best way to protect it in the long term.

  1. Decentralization protects the value of your investment.

Governance concentrated in large portfolios generates distrust in the market. And when there’s distrust, the ecosystem weakens, drives away new participants, and devalues the token. A truly decentralized system, with balancing mechanisms, increases the legitimacy and sustainability of the project, which strengthens the value of your own WLFI assets.

  1. This proposal avoids systemic risk.
    Allowing a minority with more tokens to dictate the rules is repeating the mistakes of the traditional financial system. If WLFI wants to be the pillar of a new global architecture, as proposed, it needs to be resistant to centralization and open to community renewal.

  2. Maintaining concentrated power is a strategic error. Even whales suffer when the ecosystem becomes closed and predictable. Large investors must think beyond the short term: do you want to be positioned in a living, dynamic, and reliable system, or in a stagnant environment controlled by a few?

  3. WLFI is not just any token; it is a geostrategic piece.
    We are facing a project with real potential to influence the new global financial order. WLFI + USD1 are more than technologies; they are structured responses to challenges such as inflation, geopolitics, and international payments. Protecting this ecosystem means protecting the value of your current and future position.

Saying “yes” to this proposal is saying “yes” to a future where your investment is worth even more because it is anchored in a fair, transparent, and reliable system.

Those who hold millions of WLFI today are sitting on a goldmine of value. What is at stake now is not just token distribution; it is institutional trust, the balance of the system, and the legitimacy that will sustain the price tomorrow.

It is time to lead with vision, not fear.

2 Likes
9

Usted habla de su libro, y yo hablo del mío.
Usted busca su interés , que es mejorar su posición inicial amparado en unos argumentos que perjudica a otros inversores que invirtieron más , el reparto igualitario sin tener en cuenta la inversión inicial empeoran la posición de quienes invirtieron más. Cuestión de pareceres distintos. Reparto Si, pero teniendo en cuenta el
Montante inicial de tokens.

10

Looking at the current voting status, just 7 people account for as much as 35% of the total voting power.
At this level, it’s clear that serious centralization is already taking place.
In such a situation, the DAO governance becomes practically meaningless.
In the end, this will remain a critical stain on WLFI’s credibility.

2 Likes
11

Pienso que adelantar acontecimientos en estos momentos es un esfuerzo baldío, El proyecto necesita primero salir a negociación y luego darle su tiempo, las piezas encajarán , plena confianza en el equipo directivo del WLFI que es lo que me motivó a estar invertido en este valor, y sabrá en cada momento que hacer, estoy seguro de ello.

I think that advancing events at this time is a wasteful effort, The project first needs to go out to negotiation and then give it its time, the pieces will fit, full confidence in the WLFI management team which is what motivated me to be invested in this value, and you will know at every moment what to do, I’m sure of it.

12

“There is no such thing as a truly free market economy. In other words, what is often called a free market is usually just unfair trade. Without proper regulation and checks and balances, what is called freedom becomes the power of a few. If a small group can change everything while no one can resist, the project will ultimately fail.”

13

Decentralization should not rely on human goodwill. DeFi stands for decentralized finance, and we are investing in it now.