This is good idea and when can we get the lock-up token?
FOR — I support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
1 Like
FOR — I support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
1 Like
I support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
1 Like
FOR — I support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
1 Like
Against this proposition until our locked tokens are unlocked or staked.
1 Like
going well gys : lets goo
- FOR — I support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
1 Like
- AGAINST — I do not support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
1 Like
FOR — I support the implementation of the WLFI Governance Staking System as described in this proposal.
First of all, thanks to the WLFI team for the proposal. I like the idea of encouraging long-term participation in governance through staking.Just sharing a small thought from the perspective of smaller holders. It might be interesting at some point to think about a few features that also make participation easier for them.
For example: a few additional staking tiers below the Node level.
Optional shorter lock periods with smaller .
Maybe pooled staking so smaller holders can combine their stake.
Small bonuses for active governance participationSome DeFi projects like Curve or Lido have used similar ideas to balance incentives between larger holders and the wider community.
I’m curious to see how it evolves.
1 Like
Est ce que vous pouvez m expliquer où et comment faire pour enregistrer un vote ?
Merci
ABSTAIN — I choose not to vote for or against this proposal but wish to have my participation recorded.
Against - Loxked tokens should be considered as staked and receive staking rewards acordibgly….
A FAVOR -Participación de Gobernanza de WLFI tal como se describe en esta propuesta.
Your suggestions are valued. I don’t think there would be a need to combine stakes into a pool since there is no minimum to stake. The node level will have extra incentive, but small stakes will still get the ~2% reward for governance participation.
They choose a 180day minimum staking period because they are encouraging long term holding over short term buying and selling. I think they also want to discourage people who wish to buy leading up to a vote, to gain increased voting power, then dump after the vote is complete. That would lead to volatility surrounding votes.
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.
It’s definitely good that there is no minimum staking amount, so smaller holders can still participate directly. At the same time, I was wondering if pooling could still have some advantages. If node-level participation offers higher rewards, smaller holders might benefit from combining their stakes to potentially reach that level together. Also regarding the 180-day minimum staking period. I understand the idea of encouraging long-term participation. But I’ve seen other platforms offer multiple staking durations, like 30, 60, or 90 days, which can give users a bit more flexibility. Just some thoughts, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.
1 Like
going well gys …looking so huge
A FAVOR — Apoyo la implementación del Sistema de Participación de Gobernanza de WLFI tal como se describe en esta propuesta.:corazón_amarillo:
[/quote]
Hey clown, let’s unlock our 80% $WLFI immediately and anyone who wants to leave can do so without too many words. Democracy is one and we are all born free and I must be free to stay or go. Then as your founder Trump J. says “BUY THE DIP”