Response to the “First Come, First Served” Proposal
The naked truth: this proposal is not decentralization. It’s premature centralization, strategic shortsightedness, and gambling with the lives of thousands of people.
- Decentralization is not chronology. It’s systemic justice.
WLFI is not a “fan token.” It’s the backbone of a new global financial architecture. Its value lies in its credibility, sustainability, and fair distribution of power. Rewarding only those who arrived early does not strengthen this vision; it sabotages it from the ground up.
If “first come, first served” were a legitimate criterion:
Bitcoin would have frozen the ecosystem in 2010.
Ethereum would not have created democratic staking mechanisms.
No DAO would have survived the initial concentration.
This is why all serious networks have evolved into systems based on merit, contribution, and active governance, not a date stamp.
-
Rewarding only the first to arrive weakens WLFI itself, including for those who arrived early. The crypto market operates on trust, liquidity, and collective utility.
By distributing rewards unequally and chronologically:
It discourages new participants, who are the basis of future liquidity.
It creates a feeling of injustice, which destroys institutional trust.
It drives away serious investors who seek open and democratic ecosystems.
And worst of all: it devalues the WLFI token for everyone, including early buyers.
This isn’t about ideology, but facts: projects that concentrate value in a few die due to a lack of renewal and legitimacy.
-
WLFI is not an exclusive club. It is a global infrastructure project.
WLFI and USD1 together propose:
- Revolutionize international payments.
- Protect Western monetary sovereignty.
- Replace slow and inefficient systems like SWIFT.
- Establish a strong digital response to the advancement of the BRICS.
Do you really believe that a system with this ambition can afford to appear unfair and centralized from the start?
Do you think institutions will trust something governed by “first come, first served”?
Of course not. WLFI needs to demonstrate maturity, openness, and resilience. And that starts with how it rewards its community.
-
Don’t confuse courage with a lifelong right.
Arriving early requires courage. But courage doesn’t entitle you to perpetual dominance.
If that were the case, the world’s first startups would be the only billion-dollar ones, and there would be no Google, Apple, or Ethereum.
Courage without collective vision becomes greed.
And isolated greed has always destroyed value in the markets.
-
You are playing with the dreams and lives of thousands of families.
And here’s the most serious point.
Many people placed their last hope of improving their lives in WLFI.
People who didn’t have the “opportunity to get in at 0.015,” but who studied, believed, and invested everything they had.
Some sold personal assets.
Others saved for months to buy a share.
Many saw in the project a future that the traditional system denied them.
Their proposal, by leveling everyone based on date, disregards these stories.
It’s a harsh, cruel, and unfair message: “If you arrived later, even if you believed more, contributed more, voted more… you’re worth less.”
These people’s lives are not to be trifled with. Period.
If there is to be unfair distribution, then it’s better that there be no distribution at all.
The right path: smart, balanced distribution based on merit and engagement
What the current (non-chronological) model proposes is:
Distribute based on real chain activity, not just date.
Consider engagement, education, participation, voting, testing, etc.
Protect the value of the WLFI, avoiding destructive concentration.
Attract new talent and investors, ensuring renewal.
Provide legitimacy for institutional use and large-scale adoption.
This is what serious projects do.
This is what preserves your investment.
This is what protects the 85,000 visionaries who are here to build something lasting.
Conclusion
You have the right to express your opinion. But you also have the responsibility to understand what’s at stake.
This is not a simple token distribution. It’s a global economic foundation under construction.
And the world is watching.
If your proposal passes, the WLFI loses legitimacy.
If it’s rejected, the WLFI grows.
Including for you.
Rewarding or favoring only the former is repeating the same flawed system we came to combat.
True decentralization is not a privilege. It is justice. And justice is what sustains value.
NO