Proposal: How to make WLFI tokens valuable

General
1

The value of WLFI tokens (like anything else) is based on supply and demand. Clearly, there will be a demand for these tokens. However, the problem will be in the supply. Using Bitcoin as an example. While there may be 22 million coins, they can be split into fractions to purchase. This, in theory, puts their supply in the billions. WLFI will soon have 25 billion tokens available. If you can buy fractions of them, it puts their supply, in theory, in the trillions. I propose that we only allow the sale of these tokens as a whole. It would be just like buying a share of stock. If we can get that passed, I could see the value of these tokens in the $100’s. Anyone have thoughts?

15 Likes
2

AI disagrees:

Your argument about WLFI tokens’ value being driven by supply and demand is rooted in basic economic principles, but there are several flaws and oversimplifications in your proposal to restrict token sales to whole units to artificially inflate value. Below, I refute your argument point by point:

  1. Misunderstanding Supply Dynamics:

    • You claim that allowing fractional purchases of WLFI tokens (like Bitcoin) would result in a theoretical supply in the “trillions,” diluting their value. However, the effective supply of a token is determined by the total number of units issued (25 billion for WLFI, per your example), not by how many fractions can be theoretically created. Fractionalization doesn’t increase the total supply; it just enhances accessibility and liquidity. For Bitcoin, the 21 million coin cap remains fixed, and fractional units (satoshis) don’t inflate the supply—they make it usable for smaller transactions.
    • Restricting WLFI tokens to whole-unit purchases wouldn’t reduce the actual supply of 25 billion tokens. It would only limit who can participate in the market, likely reducing demand rather than increasing value.

  2. Demand Isn’t Guaranteed:

    • You assert there will “clearly” be demand for WLFI tokens but provide no evidence. Demand depends on the token’s utility, adoption, and market perception. If WLFI tokens are tied to a specific platform or use case (e.g., a DeFi protocol or ecosystem), their demand will hinge on the success and trust in that platform, not just market hype. Without a clear use case or strong fundamentals, demand could be speculative and fleeting.
    • Bitcoin’s demand stems from its scarcity, decentralization, and widespread acceptance as a store of value. WLFI tokens, with a much larger supply and no established track record, may not replicate this. Comparing them directly is misleading.

  3. Whole-Unit Sales Reduce Liquidity and Demand:

    • Proposing that WLFI tokens only be sold as whole units (like shares of stock) ignores how token markets function. Cryptocurrencies thrive on high liquidity, which fractionalization enables. Restricting purchases to whole tokens would exclude smaller investors, drastically reducing the buyer pool and liquidity. Lower liquidity typically leads to higher volatility and lower overall demand, not higher prices.
    • Stock markets work differently. Stocks represent ownership in companies with tangible assets and cash flows, while most tokens (including WLFI, presumably) are utility or speculative assets. Limiting token purchases to whole units would make WLFI less competitive compared to other cryptocurrencies, which allow micro-transactions.

  4. Artificial Scarcity Doesn’t Guarantee Value:

    • Your proposal to restrict sales to whole tokens is an attempt to create artificial scarcity, but this rarely works in open markets. If the market perceives the restriction as manipulative or impractical, it could erode trust and reduce demand. Investors could simply turn to other tokens with more flexible trading options.
    • Even if whole-unit sales were enforced, the total supply of 25 billion tokens is still massive compared to Bitcoin’s 21 million. This large supply would likely keep prices low unless extraordinary demand emerges, which isn’t guaranteed.

  5. Practical and Regulatory Issues:

    • Enforcing whole-unit sales would require significant technical and regulatory changes, likely involving centralized control over the token’s protocol. This could undermine the decentralized ethos that attracts many crypto investors, further reducing demand.
    • Regulators might view such restrictions as market manipulation, especially if the goal is to artificially inflate prices. This could invite scrutiny and legal challenges, harming the token’s credibility.

  6. Price Prediction Is Speculative:

    • Your claim that whole-unit sales could drive WLFI token prices to “the $100’s” lacks grounding. Token prices are driven by market dynamics, not arbitrary restrictions. For a 25 billion token supply to reach $100 per token, the market cap would need to be $2.5 trillion—an astronomical figure exceeding Bitcoin’s peak market cap (~$1.2 trillion in 2021). Without unprecedented adoption and utility, this is unrealistic.

Counter-Proposal

Instead of restricting sales to whole units, WLFI’s value could be better supported by:

  • Clear Utility: Define a compelling use case (e.g., governance, payments, or DeFi integration) to drive organic demand.
  • Controlled Issuance: Gradually release tokens or implement burning mechanisms to manage supply.
  • Community Engagement: Build trust and adoption through transparency and decentralized governance.

Conclusion

Restricting WLFI token sales to whole units would likely reduce liquidity, exclude smaller investors, and fail to address the core issue of demand. The token’s value will depend on its utility, adoption, and market perception, not artificial supply constraints. Comparing WLFI to Bitcoin oversimplifies the dynamics, and your price prediction lacks evidence. A more practical approach would focus on building real-world value and trust in the token’s ecosystem.

2 Likes
3

And that is why you don’t use AI to answer questions. There’s a reason why worldwide stock is sold whole. There’s also a reason why tokenization is designed to mimic IPO’s.

1 Like