The WLFI Governance Staking System proposal represents a meaningful step toward incentivizing active, long-term participation in protocol governance. By requiring unlocked $WLFI to be staked (with a 180-day minimum lock-up) for voting eligibility and rewards (~2% APR target from treasury, plus USD1 deposit incentives), and introducing tiered Nodes for committed participants, it aims to align incentives and reduce short-term speculation.
However, a critical issue of fairness remains unaddressed:
Holders of locked/vested tokens (including the significant portion held by early supporters) retain baseline voting rights but are explicitly excluded from the new staking rewards, USD1 incentives, and Node-tier benefits, as these apply only to staked unlocked tokens.
The proposal contains no mechanism for retroactive recognition or compensation for the extended lock-up periods early participants have already endured—often without clear communication on release timelines.
This creates an inequitable outcome: long-term supporters who demonstrated commitment from the outset receive none of the new incentives, while only those with currently unlocked tokens can benefit.
To uphold principles of equity, trust, and sustainable community governance, I respectfully urge the following:
Amend the proposal (or commit via follow-up) to include retroactive staking rewards (or an equivalent mechanism, such as bonus allocation, accelerated unlock credit, or proportional governance points) for the vested/locked portions held by early participants.
In the absence of such an adjustment, I strongly recommend that community members vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
A simple majority (excluding abstentions) with 1 billion quorum is required for passage. Voting NO absent this fairness measure would send a clear signal that equitable treatment of early and committed holders is non-negotiable for the protocol’s long-term health.
Thank you for your consideration. I encourage thoughtful discussion and participation in the 7-day voting window.
2 Likes
I don’t plan to vote “NO” on the proposal, but I believe the proposal (or a future proposal) should accommodate the locked tokens. Rather than exempting them from the staking requirement for governance, they should just be automatically staked and therefore eligible for all associated benefits.
4 Likes