Sí, apoyo el modelo de desbloqueo anual de 1.000 tokens por billetera y la distribución equitativa del 30% entre los 85.110 titulares.
7 Likes
No. 1k Annual unlock is too low. it should be at the least 10K. and Honestly the 30% allocation distribution should only be Airdrop to the Initial Supporters and those are the once who bought at $0.015 on Presale. Based on the recent vote to make the token tradeable, only 21k Voted. Those who participated should be Given and not the entire 85K. But Market wise, Id rather see that 30% Burned.
8 Likes
Yes, I think it is an interesting proposal and one that should be highly valued by the community.
6 Likes
I don’t support this proposal. Unlock 100% from early presale supporters who bought at $0.015. Linear vest everyone else. Those that took a risk while all the doubters and haters were on the sideline they can have their tokens locked or buy on secondary!
8 Likes
Yes, I agree : the annual unlocking model of 1,000 tokens per wallet and the equitable distribution of 30% among the 85,110 holders.
9 Likes
No, I do not consent.
5 Likes
Not good idea and no one will support this
5 Likes
Nope i don’t support this proposal
4 Likes
No — I do not support this proposal as presented.
You live in a fantasy land buddy – im not going to wait 300 years to get my tokens, they should all be released if i want to sell them now or in 10 years i should be able to thats the point of a free market. you think people invest money to wait 100 years for a return.
going to north korea you commie
7 Likes
Yes — I support the annual unlocking model of 1,000 tokens per wallet and the equitable distribution of 30% among the 85,110 holders.
4 Likes
Unlock at least half of the amount held in the wallet.
4 Likes
I support the annual release of of 1000 wlfi Token
4 Likes
Yes — I support the annual unlocking model of 1,000 tokens per wallet and the equitable distribution of 30% among the 85,110 holders
6 Likes
No — I do not support this proposal as presented.
Main reason: Although the goal of sustainability and equity is commendable, the proposal is too rigid and potentially harmful to the WLFI ecosystem.
The unlock limit of 1,000/year is excessively restrictive, risking killing liquidity and frustrating holders – a recurring problem in projects with poorly calibrated vesting (e.g., some DAOs have seen their TVL drop by 50-80% after similar restrictions).
The equal distribution, although idealistic, ignores economic incentive principles: it favors small holders at the expense of major contributors, which could weaken the appeal to serious investors and lead to indirect centralization via multi-wallets.
In addition, the assumptions about the price (13,000 USD/token) are unrealistic without adjusting the effective supply (the inconsistency between 100M unlocked in the prop. and 100B real raises doubts about reliability).
Current community discussions on X show a preference for flexible votes on unlocks (e.g., progressive over 2-5 years), rather than a fixed limit).
Voting Yes could stabilize in the short term, but at the price of reduced adoption.
It is better to propose amendments: progressive unlock (e.g., 5-10%/year pro-rata) and mixed distribution (50% equal, 50% pro-rata).
If you are a long-term small holder, consider abstention to observe the debates; otherwise, No to push for a more balanced version.
4 Likes
No — I do not support this proposal as presented.
There are cleverer ways to ensure healthy tokenomics but not like this.
3 Likes
The most shitty proposal !!!
Why 1000 per wallet ?
Let’s make it 20% per wallet.
You wanna get rich with 10 dollars.
Nice try.
6 Likes
Sí, apoyo el desbloqueo anual de 1.000 tokens por billetera y la distribución equitativa del 30% entre los 85.110 titulares. Esto marca un procedente y premia a la lealtad hacia el proyecto. Y podría cambiar muchas vidas
4 Likes
I agree. I don’t support this. It makes absolutely no sense. Sorry!
2 Likes
No — I do not support this proposal as presented.
2 Likes
Dear all,
After careful analysis and consultation with two mathematical experts, I have concluded that the concerns raised in the previous proposal are legitimate. These experts corroborated the arguments of those who voted against it, and, out of respect for the community and the principle of decentralization we advocate, I have decided to amend the original proposal. I am pleased to share a new proposal that is more realistic, fair, and directly addresses all the concerns raised in the comments. This version aims to fully protect the WLFI token and reinforce its decentralized nature.
New Proposal: https://governance.worldlibertyfinancial.com/t/wgip-01-proposal-for-progressive-unlocking-and-fair-distribution-of-wlfi-tokens-to-original-holders/35216
I invite everyone to read carefully and reflect on the new content. The participation of each member is essential for us to build solid, transparent, and fair governance for all involved. I remain available for clarification and constructive discussions.
Sincerely,
Herminio Coragem
6 Likes