Your last sentence is also the answer to why we, the holders who joined the presale, donāt want everyone to vote on the future of the project. You see the vote as a āshareā. We apologizeā¦
The reason is clear:
We joined when there was nothing tangible, no promise of financial benefit, no dividend, no airdrop.
Only the promise that we would have the right to vote on the course of a protocol that we believed in.
It was pure trust. It was a risk. There was no liquidity. We felt like co-founders in a community that was being built from scratch.
Today, with the project open and the token unlocked, we see a flood of FOMO and greed from both old and new members.
If you donāt see it, take a look at the issue of unlocking the remaining 80%.
A vote is not just a ticket to governance, it is a privilege earned with trust, not bought on the open market.
Think about it:
When we joined, we knew we wouldnāt win financially, we would only co-shape the future of WLFI.
There was no trading. There were no prices. Just the belief that we would build something substantial, liquidity pools, Aave integrations, debit cards that bridge Web2.
We had skin in the game, with no āescape routeā.
This made us stewards, not speculators.
When we voted to unlock the project, we did so to grow it faster, not to attract people who would vote for personal gain.
Now, some of you joined after the unlock, you see the price move, you get percentages from affiliate rewards, and suddenly the vote becomes a tool:
āLetās vote for burn, letās raise the priceā,
āLetās give incentives for staking, letās benefitā.
But how many of you really care about the vision of WLFI?
About strengthening USD1, about resisting CBDCs, about community autonomy?
Iām not saying you shouldnāt be here, āyouāre welcomeā. Letās discuss, letās exchange ideas.
But the vote canāt be the first thing you ask for.
Thatās why I propose a āvintage-tierā governance model:
Initial holders (from the locked period) hold full voting rights, with a 5% cap to maintain balance.
New holders have advisory rights, they can comment, suggest, but not influence the main strategic decisions with a vote, this way you will also be able to contribute.
In this way, we protect the ecosystem from turning into another DAO driven by hype and whales.
We keep the vision where it belongs.
And letās not forget the wallets that have been hacked in the past. There are holders who live with the anxiety for their tokens.
I was lucky and was not among those who were hacked.
But that does not mean that I do not understand the fear and pressure they feel..
Now imagine: a simple speculator, who joined later, frivolously votes to unlock the remaining 80% and automatically gives the green light to hackers to empty the already exposed wallets.
This is not just a risk. It is a disregard for your fellow human beings.
Governance requires respect and trust.
Not selfishness and profiteering.
I hope I have you covered.
Allowing anyone who simply bought WLFI on the open market to vote on key decisions is not only unfair to early supporters itās also potentially dangerous. 
