Proposal: Fairness Adjustment for Final Presale ($0.05) Participants

[Ash]

Proposal: Fairness Adjustment for Final Presale ($0.05) Participants

Summary

This proposal recommends a retroactive WLFI bonus for wallet addresses that purchased tokens during the final presale round at $0.05, to correct for their significantly higher cost basis compared to early presale participants. A capped, time-locked bonus allocation would acknowledge their late-stage support while preserving supply stability.

Motivation

The WLFI presale was conducted in two distinct pricing tiers:

• $0.015 per token for ~20 billion WLFI (Early Presale)
• $0.05 per token for ~5 billion WLFI (Final Presale Stage)

Final-round participants paid over 3x the price per token and received fewer tokens per dollar invested, despite their willingness to commit at a more advanced, risk-assessed stage. Many joined under tighter timeframes, with higher price exposure.

To support community alignment, fairness, and long-term credibility, this proposal seeks to recognize and balance the investment positions of $0.05 participants through a modest bonus in WLFI tokens.

Proposed Action

Grant a 30% bonus (capped and time-locked) to wallets that participated in the final WLFI presale round at $0.05.

Details:

• Eligibility: Verified wallets that purchased WLFI at $0.05 during the final presale round (snapshot from presale ledger)
• Bonus Amount: 30% of tokens purchased at $0.05
• Cap: 300,000 WLFI bonus per eligible wallet (to prevent whales from skewing benefit)
• Distribution Timing: Within 30 days of proposal passing
• Lockup Period: Bonus tokens will be non-transferable for 6 months from the date of distribution

---

Safeguards

• Bonus only applies to wallets still holding at least 50% of their presale WLFI at time of proposal snapshot (to reward long-term holders)
• Distribution smart contract will automatically lock tokens for 6 months
• Clear list of eligible wallets will be published in advance for community review

---

Benefits

• Equity: Helps normalize entry costs between presale tiers
• Loyalty Reward: Recognizes later-stage backers for higher-risk commitment
• Stability: Time-locking bonus prevents short-term sell pressure
• Community Signal: Shows WLFI is serious about fairness and governance evolution

---

Call for Discussion

I invite the community to weigh in on:

• Fairness of the 30% bonus rate
• Whether a 6-month lockup is sufficient
• Additional verification mechanisms or thresholds

[subrata_dhar]

its logical but in fairness of the 30% bonus rate is best idea but if equally distribute its will better and trustable idea .

[idontknow]

Hard disagree.

How would this be fair to people who did not buy the tokens in the pre-sale at $0.05 and have to buy at pre-market for $0.15 - $0.20? This is a capitalist market!

[Ash]

Appreciate your perspective — but I’d like to offer a counterpoint with some context.

Key Difference: Knowledge of Tradability

People buying WLFI at $0.15–$0.20 today already know that WLFI is becoming tradable soon.
They’re entering with:

• Clear confirmation that tokens will be liquid
• Knowledge of community governance, exchange interest, and token mechanics
• Access to price discovery and resale markets

In contrast, buyers at $0.05 had no such clarity:

• WLFI was explicitly non-transferable
• No guarantees of future liquidity
• Greater regulatory and political risk
• No certainty that governance would even become community-driven

So yes — $0.15–$0.20 is a higher price, but it’s also lower risk with full visibility.
Meanwhile, $0.05 buyers entered blind, when this was still a semi-closed system.

---

It’s Not Anti-Capitalist — It Is Risk-Adjusted Fairness

This isn’t about undermining market forces. It’s basic venture logic:
In every startup or token ecosystem, early backers often get bonuses or discounts to compensate for higher uncertainty. That’s not charity — it’s risk-reward balance.

This small bonus proposal (which is also locked for 6 months) simply acknowledges that:

• $0.05 buyers paid more than $0.015 buyers
• And did so without the benefit of tradability or price support

---

Summary

• $0.05 buyers had no tradability, no liquidity, and took major risk
• $0.15+ buyers knew WLFI would be tradeable — that’s a massive value unlock
• This bonus is just a small alignment gesture — locked, capped, and limited

Appreciate the debate — discussion like this makes the ecosystem stronger.

[depathol]

I’m completely disagree. If you bought at 0.015, 0.020, or 0.05, it was your decision to enter at that point. Your proposal is as absurd as if those who just bought BTC at six figures were asking for compensation for not having bought at $0.00076 USD per unit in October 2009.

[zzzlen]

Disagreement

-Welcome to the crypto world, there should always be a bigger profit for early investors (those who bought at 0.015).

[Toto]

No : this is not the fair idea

[Taquitodejamon]

No estoy de acuerdo.

[Uxell]

I strongly disagree. The presale is over — those who bought at $0.05 accepted the terms and risk. Missing the early price doesn’t justify a retroactive bonus. If you believe in the project, support it at launch. Early buyers took far more risk at $0.015. No one was forced to buy at $0.05 — that’s not unfair, that’s how presales work.

[Anil]

Yes. Totally agree.
There has to be an arrangement for early buyers.
If that fund is created to reward early buyers, I am okay with them giving the rewards according to the buying line.

First come, first served. Clear and fair.

[Ash]

You’re right, in any open market, traders make their own decisions.
But in the case of WLFI, the situation was fundamentally different during the $0.05 round.

There were no clear guarantees of tradability, no open exchange plans. Unlike BTC or other tokens that were tradeable from day one, WLFI buyers at $0.05 entered with far less certainty and higher risk.

So this isn’t about changing the rules after the fact — it’s about acknowledging a unique situation and proposing a fair, time-locked adjustment to reflect that reality.

Personally I bought 0.015 and 0.05. why the price was increased? Who approved 0.05? If it’s community/governance token then we should have voted for any price increase through votes. Once it’s trading at open market that’s completely different and that’s where your argument will make sense. Thank you for the input.

[ABeautifulDay]

A better approach is to perform an airdrop to ALL early WLFI token holders who have participated in the governance & community portal.

Participation in the ecosystem (such as voting) and community is very much more relevant, compared to who bought earlier or later.

[BitcoinInc]

Seriously? HARD No.

Many lost a great deal of money by selling assets early in order to buy at launch. Do they get compensation for the loss?

[CoolBlueLagoon]

Just so we’re clear here:

You want to reward those who waited until the second round and FOMO’d in when given the opportunity at a higher price.

Round 1 buyers mainly purchased prior to the election, before Trump won, and before he was inaugurated. Round 2 buyers bought in after the $TRUMP token was released and pumped.

No point in any bonus for round 2, in my opinion. Their fault their conviction was not high enough .

Imo of round 2 buyers will be paper hands, anyway.

[Moonair]

Good response ! I agree

[kmiller0814]

It should actually be the opposite. I would give a bonus to the very 1st risk takers. The more risk you take the more reward you should receive.

[El_Reino_de_Oshym]

Gran idea pero el reparto de e ser para todos , tanto los que compraron primero como los que compraron después .

[kburch]

No, this does not make sense. Unless the early adopters also get the 30% bonus, I am a no.

[VI3]

Couldn’t disagree more. This is asking for charity. As an American investor, I had to pay for Verified Investor paperwork. Should WLF have to pay me back for that? For “fairness”? Make your financial decisions and own them.

[Ash]

Totally respect that — and yes, everyone should own their financial decisions. But this proposal isn’t asking for charity or personal reimbursement.

It’s not about individual paperwork costs or who had it harder — it’s about a structural fairness issue at the protocol level, where:

• WLFI’s presale pricing changed without governance input
• Final-round participants at $0.05 had less utility, more risk, and no tradability
• Meanwhile, others (now) are buying with full access to liquidity and market confidence

This proposal is simply saying: if we claim WLFI is a governance-driven token, then we should treat all presale phases transparently, and fix oversights when they surface.

So no, not asking for refunds, not asking for exceptions. Just asking for WLFI to walk the talk on governance and fairness in its token rollout.