You have done a very good job.
The only question is how efficient this whole process is…
Maybe the unlocking will be guaranteed to work after the token trading starts, and then try to unlock the coins?
And next question:
What if a malicious actor sends a smart contract with malicious execution code to the addresses from this list and the user inadvertently performs some actions with the received transfer?
In general, you need to be very careful with any receipts to your wallet from unknown persons.
Perhaps I am exaggerating the nature of the problem too much, and let more competent technical specialists correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t think it’s necessary like so. If they knew there were so many KYC automated mistakes and they were going to do manual approvals,they were going to say it before Monday and before the lockbox was active. Let’s hope they fix this as soon as possible.
Reading about the problems with this service here and in the X community, a lot of questions arise for the developers and managers of this service. This is some kind of nightmare. WLFI attracted huge funds from investors who essentially took this project at its word, without any guarantees. The development team had almost a year to create a working functionality, test it and prepare a team of support specialists who could promptly respond to investor requests.
Still no reply even from compliance@wlfi.email and still I can’t lock my coins. This is not a KYC issue – my compliance was already confirmed (USD1 reward proves this).
Hi Ivan,
your airdrop does not confirm your compliance.
Because in case of airdrop and purchasing of governance non-transferable tokens is one legal field, and giving you opportunity to trade them is another case.
So, might be that your specific case is under such restrictions.
Hope you’ll get official answer till 1st of september.
If KYC was a mandatory condition for the initial purchase with the buyer providing documents from the list of documents offered by the WLF service, then how can it even turn out that KYC verification was not completed or passed, and the tokens were purchased?
This is a question for the organizers and developers of the WLFI service.
What would be this specific case in your opinion . I am a normal person (no criminal activity all my life) I work for a software company. I presented them with my international passport from a EU country, clean reckord all the way. What constitutes the right to exclude me from a list! I have paid for the coins with my own clean money from salaries. So what will this be? Did they ask you to do KYC one more time, because you will be the first one?
To be honest, I can only hope that it’s mistake.
As far as I see from you WLFI amount, is definitely not the amount where you need dirty money.
So, I believe you 100%. EU-country, suppose it is Bulgaria, also shouldn’t be a problem.
You are now fantasizing and inventing a justification.
The rule was announced: sale only with KYC, for which it was possible to provide one of the proposed documents, including a passport or driver’s license.
sale of tokens without KYC was not intended at all. If someone received tokens without this check, then the service did not work correctly at that time.
there were no other conditions for re-checking, and revision of the list of documents for KYC at the time of the token sale.
At the moment, there are no explanations on the WLFI website regarding the revision of the rules for the sale of tokens at the initial stage.
Therefore, what you said is exclusively your assumption without any evidence.
Sure, everything what I’m saying is only my assumption (may be will add it every message).
Relax a bit, I know it’s frustrating. May be it’s system bag, and you’ll get your tokens.
I’m just trying not to justify, rather to find some logic behind the scene.
But there was another issue I was trying to raise:
I noticed that my address, which was used for the initial purchase of tokens, received some PAI coins from the BNB Smart Cain network from an unknown sender. I did a little research on the contents of the smart contract inside this transfer and found some code there, at first glance neutral.
The arrival of these “unsolicited” coins occurred around the same time as the $47 reward from USD1.
Of course, I understand all the risks of such transfers and did not touch this suspicious receipt in any way. etherscan.io showed that these funds came from an address unknown to me. And from this same unknown address there were mailings to other wallets.
Therefore, I would prefer to wait for the start of official token trading.
If at that point there are complaints from other investors, then I would prefer to refrain from any actions with the coins.
To be honest, I had a higher opinion of the approach of the WLFI service developers to their work.
All these problems with the unlocked one should not have arisen at all at the initial stage. All this needed to be tested and debugged in advance. The developers have had almost a full year since the start of the WLFI project.
