Against keep token in treasury
AGAINST
I believe that as early investors we would like a timeline for the release of our tokens to be presented before we vote on how the project will develop; it makes no sense to vote on a project where we don’t know how and when we will receive our tokens.
1 Like
AGAINST: Keep tokens in treasury
I couldn’t agree more
AGAINST: Keep tokens in treasury
I’d like a clear vesting schedule before I can approve decisions like this. How about the core team uses profits from the USD1 treasury yields to buy back WLFI and uses those tokens for incentives, rather than causing WLFI sell pressure and dropping the price, hurting current WLFI holders and the project as a whole, just so the core team doesn’t have to dip into their USD1 treasury yield profits (which aren’t being shared with WLFI holders in any way, just pure profit for the core team)?
At ~4% a year for USD1 treasury yields, the core team makes ~$10,000,000 a month just from the 3 billion TVL on USD1. Save WLFI treasury tokens for more targeted WLFI platform incentives in the future and only suggest the possibility of those after a vesting schedule is provided so WLFI holders can plan accordingly and make those decisions in good faith.
Set a portion of the core team’s USD1 treasury yield gains aside to allocate to buying up the WLFI sell pressure at each of the early investor token unlock points to keep the WLFI price stable and the core team can use those tokens as needed for incentives. And keep the core team WLFI pre-launch tokens locked to keep the ratio of circulating supply to total supply optically favourable as the core team is profiting more than enough as is from USD1 treasury yield gains.
This will benefit both the core team and WLFI holders, rather than crashing the WLFI price and killing the entire project just because the core team got greedy and tried to do things in the wrong order.
1 Like
Please give the crybabies their 80 percent and generously reward the people that dont and have not unlock at all
AGAINST: Keep tokens in treasury
.
@worldlibertyfi @EricTrump @ZachWitkoff @DonaldJTrumpJr @0xDylan_
Subject: WLFI Treasury Deployment to Support USD1 Growth
Author Perspective: Institutional Investor / Hedge Fund Allocator
Vote Recommendation: AGAINST (Current Form) or ABSTAIN (Risk Signal)
⸻
Executive Summary (Vote Rationale)
Recommendation:
AGAINST — in its current form
(or ABSTAIN to signal conditional support without approving dilution)
This position is not based on opposition to USD1. On the contrary, USD1 demonstrates strong product-market fit and execution.
The objection is purely governance, risk management, and value-capture related. As drafted, the proposal does not meet minimum institutional standards for treasury deployment, dilution control, or economic alignment with WLFI holders.
⸻
Strategic Context (Why This Vote Matters)
This proposal authorizes the sale or deployment of WLFI treasury tokens to accelerate the growth of a separate asset (USD1) without binding mechanisms that ensure WLFI holders receive proportional economic benefit.
Historically, this exact structure is where many DAOs permanently impair token value:
•Treasury becomes a funding source
•Token holders absorb dilution
•Value accrues elsewhere
•Trust erodes irreversibly
⸻
Positive Aspects of the Proposal 
A balanced assessment acknowledges the following strengths:
-
Proven USD1 Traction
•~$3B TVL achieved in ~6 months
•Clear evidence of demand and adoption -
Incentives Are a Market Reality
•CeFi and DeFi integrations require economic alignment
•Strategic partnerships do not materialize organically -
Nominal Cap Appears Conservative
•Reference to “<5% of unlocked treasury” suggests awareness of dilution risk
•However, execution details are missing (see below)
Conclusion:
Conceptually, supporting USD1 growth is rational. Structurally, this proposal is incomplete.
⸻
Critical Deficiencies (Why It Is Not Vote-Ready) 
1. Open-Ended Dilution Risk
The proposal lacks enforceable constraints:
•No fixed deployment schedule
•No cadence or tranche limits
•No price-impact rules
•No lockups or vesting requirements
This structure allows continuous sell pressure, justified indefinitely as “USD1 growth.”
⸻
2. No Enforceable WLFI Value Capture (Core Issue)
The claim that “USD1 growth strengthens WLFI” is a narrative, not a mechanism.
Missing entirely:
• Fee sharing
• Buyback & burn program
• Staking or yield rights
• Mandatory WLFI usage within USD1 ecosystem
• Treasury inflows tied to USD1 revenue
Without explicit linkage, WLFI functions as a cost center, not an equity-like asset.
⸻
3. Trust and Timing Risk
Context matters in capital allocation:
•~20B WLFI tokens were previously unlocked without clear community approval
•Confidence was damaged
•This proposal arrives after that event
In institutional finance, timing and trust are risk variables, not emotions.
⸻
4. Disclosure Is Not Governance
Post-hoc transparency does not mitigate risk.
Effective governance requires:
•Rules before execution
•Constraints before dilution
•Accountability before capital is deployed
⸻
Minimum Requirements for Approval 
If the proposal were revised to include the following, approval would be justified:
1. Immutable Treasury Cap
•Explicit maximum allocation (e.g., 3% hard cap, not “<5%”)
•Fixed duration (e.g., 6 months, non-renewable without new vote)
⸻
2. Zero Market-Dumping Clause
•WLFI used for incentives cannot be sold on open markets
•Must be:
•Locked
•Vested
•Or performance-based
⸻
3. Mandatory USD1 → WLFI Value Capture
At least one enforceable mechanism, such as:
•USD1 revenue → WLFI buyback
•% of USD1 fees → WLFI treasury
•WLFI staking required for USD1 partners
•WLFI burn per USD1 minted
Without this, WLFI subsidizes growth without equity-like upside.
⸻
1 Like
@WLFI @WLFI_Team @all
I’ll answer this as a professional investor / hedge-fund style allocator, not emotionally, not politically. @ZachWitkoff @realDonaldTrump @0xDylan_ @EricTrump
⸻
Short answer (my vote):
AGAINST — in the proposal’s CURRENT FORM
(or ABSTAIN if you want to send a warning without blocking momentum)
Not because USD1 growth is bad — USD1 is excellent —
but because this proposal fails basic governance, risk, and value-capture standards.
⸻
Why this matters (big picture)
You are being asked to approve selling / deploying WLFI tokens
→ to fund growth of another asset (USD1)
→ without binding guarantees that WLFI holders benefit economically.
This is the exact point where many DAOs permanently destroy token value.
⸻
What is GOOD in the proposal
I’ll be fair:
1.USD1 success is real
•~$3B TVL in ~6 months = strong product-market fit
2.Strategic partnerships need incentives
•CeFi / DeFi integrations don’t happen for free
3.Limiting to <5% sounds conservative
•If transparently executed
Conceptually → supporting USD1 makes sense
⸻
Why this proposal is NOT vote-ready
1. No hard limits = open-ended dilution risk
•“<5% of unlocked treasury”
•But no schedule
•No cadence
•No price-impact rules
•No minimum lockups
This allows:
slow, continuous sell pressure justified as “USD1 growth”
⸻
2. No WLFI value-capture mechanism (this is critical)
They say:
“USD1 growth strengthens WLFI”
That is not a mechanism — it’s a narrative.
Missing:
• Fee sharing
• Buyback & burn
• Staking rewards
• Treasury inflows to WLFI
• Mandatory WLFI usage by USD1 partners
WLFI currently behaves like a COST CENTER, not an asset.
⸻
3. Trust deficit (timing problem)
Let’s be honest:
•20B WLFI were unlocked earlier without clear approval
•Community confidence was damaged
•Now the team asks for permission after the fact
In finance, timing + trust matters as much as fundamentals.
⸻
4. “We’ll disclose partners” is not governance
Transparency after selling is not protection.
Governance requires:
•Rules before
•Constraints before
•Accountability before
⸻
What a PROPER version of this proposal must include
If they added the below, I would vote FOR immediately:
1. Immutable cap
•Exact % (e.g. max 3%, not “<5%”)
•Fixed duration (e.g. 6 months only)
⸻
2. Zero market dumping clause
•WLFI incentives cannot be sold on open market
•Must be:
•locked
•vested
•or performance-based
⸻
3. USD1 → WLFI value capture (mandatory)
At least ONE of:
•USD1 revenue → WLFI buyback
•% of USD1 fees → WLFI treasury
•WLFI staking required for USD1 partners
•WLFI burned per USD1 minted
Without this → WLFI is just fuel, not equity
⸻
4. Public reporting cadence
•Monthly report:
•tokens used
•partners
•measurable ROI
•USD1 growth attributable to incentives
⸻
My recommended vote strategy for YOU
Option A — STRONG SIGNAL (recommended)
AGAINST
Forces the team to come back with a real, structured proposal.
Option B — POLITICAL BUT SAFE
ABSTAIN
Signals: “We support USD1, but not unchecked dilution.”
What I would NOT do
FOR (blind approval)
This permanently weakens WLFI’s negotiating power.
⸻
Final professional verdict
USD1 is a great product.
WLFI governance is currently under-designed.
Never fund growth without guaranteed value return.
2 Likes
(My VOTE) Against: Keep the tokens in the treasury.
FOR > utilize 5% of the unlocked
1 Like
FOR > utilize 5% of the unlocked treasury holdings
1 Like
FOR: Utilize <5% of unlocked $WLFI treasury holdings to grow USD1
1 Like
잠금 해제된 $WLFI 국채 보유액의 5% 미만을 활용하여 USD1을 성장시키십시오.
FOR: Utilize <5% of unlocked $WLFI treasury holdings to grow USD1
FOR: Utilize <5% of unlocked $WLFI treasury holdings to grow USD1
I voted with my wallet.
I am waiting WLFI hit $100 in a day
FOR: Utilize <5% of unlocked $WLFI treasury holdings to grow USD1
1 Like
For, proceed with this proposal
1 Like