According to a post on X by @TansuYegen (presumably his own analysis — if he prefers it not be shared, he can contact me directly), this is a brilliant unlock scenario analysis for WLFI’s first trading day.
Based on this model:
If 5B out of 25B tokens (20%) are made tradable:
• Opening price could range from $2.15 – $3.76
• 24-hour peak price could hit $5.64 – $8.27
• With strategic announcements like staking APY, these could go even higher!
Rather than pushing for full liquidity and short-term profit taking, I believe as a community we should support measured unlocks that benefit long-term holders and strengthen WLFI’s growth outlook.
The forum is the best place to make this heard. Let’s raise our voice collectively!
⸻
POLL: What unlock scenario would YOU support for WLFI’s first tradable day?
(Select based on the graphic below)
5B Tokens - 20% of sold supply (Extreme scarcity, high price potential)
10B Tokens - 40% of sold supply (High scarcity)
15B Tokens - 60% of sold supply (Moderate scarcity)
20B Tokens - 80% of sold supply (Low scarcity)
25B Tokens - 100% of sold supply (No scarcity)
0voters
Reference image attached below for detailed analysis.
Let’s keep this thread constructive and focused — if we align as a community, our voice can help shape launch strategy in a way that benefits everyone.
100% of pre-sale tokens are already distributed and unlocked. The vote is to make the token transferable for recipients of the token.
The only tokens that remained locked are Early/Initial Supporter tokens (30%) and team members tokens (2.5%).
The vote is to make the token $WLFI transferable for people who already have the token (pre-sale and OTC buyers) AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, to make a % of tokens of Early/Initial Supporters unlocked and distributed, while team member tokens remained locked. In a second vote, the community will decide how the remainder of their tokens will unlock/vest.
Thanks for the clarification — and you’re absolutely right that 100% of the pre-sale tokens are already distributed and unlocked in wallets. However, the key issue here is transferability — and that’s exactly why this vote is still critical.
Even though holders have received their tokens, they currently cannot trade or move them. Making only a portion (e.g., 5B) tradable on First period still creates scarcity in the market — because only that fraction becomes liquid and accessible on exchanges.
This has major implications for:
• Price discovery: Limited supply = higher potential opening price
• Market health: Controlled liquidity prevents massive sell-offs
• Community sentiment: Rewards early supporters while avoiding early dumping
• Strategic alignment: Encourages staking and long-term holding
So yes — the vote isn’t about distribution, it’s about enabling transfers and managing circulating supply, especially in relation to how much of Early/Initial Supporter tokens are unlocked too.
A phased unlock supports both confidence and price stability. Let’s keep advocating for a launch that supports WLFI’s long-term success — not just short-term exits.
Too little liquidity leads to high price volatility, making it difficult for early investors to enter.
This phenomenon has been observed in many other projects.
That’s a valid point — too little liquidity can cause volatility in many projects, especially those launching from zero visibility or without strong fundamentals.
But WLFI is not just “any other project.”
It’s expected to launch with high visibility and strong community demand — potentially entering the Top 10 by market cap based on pre-launch interest and allocation size. That already puts it in a different league.
WLFI is designed for long-term value through governance utility and a broader DeFi integration strategy. While there’s no active staking for WLFI tokens yet, the organization has demonstrated its commitment to DeFi principles by staking significant amounts of ETH via Lido Finance, signaling alignment with long-term decentralized finance strategies.
Instead of overwhelming the market on Day 1, a controlled unlock helps preserve price stability, reward long-term holders, and allow genuine demand to shape price discovery — not short-term speculation.
Strategic liquidity is key — and that’s exactly what WLFI’s current community-led approach is aiming to deliver.
You guys have no clue what you are advocating for.
If less than 100% of pre-sale tokens (25 billion) becomes transferable, while in addition a % of tokens from Early/Initial Supporters unlocks and is distributed, it effectively means that retail (85000 holders) would hold about 50% of circulating supply, while a few entities/individuals would hold the remainder! This scenario alone is extremely unfavorable for retail pre-sale buyers.
YET you are, in addition to that, advocating that onlt 5b of those 25b tokens will be transferable?
That is 5% of supply. The early/initial supporters + team members hold 32.5% of supply. A percentage of that will unlock. This would mean a few individuals would hold up to 90% of circulating supply!
100% of pre-sale tokens must be transferable if any % of early supporter tokens (30% allocation) is made transferable. If not, the distribution would be extremely unfair and not healthy for the market.
Also, pre-market trading already takes into account 100% transferability of pre-sale tokens based on the average pre-market price of 0.15 - 0.20.
If less than 100% of pre-sale tokens would be made transferable, the World Liberty Financial team would have informed us WELL IN ADVANCE (prior to us buying the tokens, actually) in addition of informing the pre-market exchanges.
If only 20% of 25b tokens would be made transferable, pre-market exchanges would have priced that in differently and token on pre-market would be between 0.75 - 1, not where it is currently trading at.
Pre-market trading — including on platforms like MEXC — operates under an IOU (I Owe You) model. This means traders are buying and selling placeholder tokens, not real WLFI tokens, and there’s no guarantee on when or how much of the token supply will be transferable at launch.
As such, pre-market prices are speculative — they reflect hype, sentiment, and assumptions, not confirmed tokenomics or unlock conditions. They should not be treated as indicators of guaranteed supply models or liquidity expectations.
If only 20% of tokens become transferable at launch, that does not contradict the pre-market pricing — because the market was trading on assumptions, not on guaranteed terms.
So no, the pre-market price does not bind the WLFI team or the DAO to unlock 100% of tokens. Final unlock decisions are still governed by proposals and community voting.
Wrong. Pre-market trades based on assumptions about circulating supply, in this case, at least 25 billion. The fact that all pre-market exchanges are in the same range confirms that they have received this confirmation from the World Liberty Financial team.
Also, be careful what you wish for. If only 20% of pre-sale tokens are made available, it will change nothing about the price per token (it won’t increase to many dollars as you seem to think will happen) because FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation) is what matters. What will happen is that you will have access to fewer tokens and that the potential selling pressure from Initial Supporters will be far larger because their supply would represent a much larger percentage (over 50%) of total circulating supply.
I’m not here to argue either, but let’s clarify a few things.
First, pre-market trades are not based on confirmed circulating supply; they’re based on assumptions, projections, and sentiment. Just because all pre-market exchanges are pricing within a certain range doesn’t mean they have received official confirmation from the World Liberty Financial team. More likely, they’re using a common assumption as a placeholder until details are finalized.
Second, regarding the release of only 20% of pre-sale tokens: you’re misunderstanding how market dynamics and FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation) work. FDV is a theoretical metric – it doesn’t dictate immediate market price. The actual price per token in early trading is determined by the circulating supply and real-time demand, not the FDV. If only 20% of pre-sale tokens are released, and demand stays the same, then yes – price per token is likely to be higher in the short term, because supply is lower.
Your point about potential selling pressure from initial supporters is valid – but only if they can sell, which depends on lock-up terms, vesting schedules, and market conditions. Many projects stagger token releases precisely to prevent sudden shocks like this.
In short: pre-market pricing is speculative, FDV is not the only factor, and lower circulating supply often leads to higher price per token in the short term, not lower. I suggest you do more in-depth research on how pre-market token economics and liquidity work before making assumptions.
I know exactly how market dynamics work and don’t need an explanation, but thank you for providing your view!
The proposal written by the team is very clear and leaves no room for any other interpretation than the one I explained before :
100% of already distributed tokens becomes transferable, and in addition to that, a % of Early Supporter tokens unlocks and distributes, while in a 2nd vote, the community decides how the remainder of their coins will vest
Not sure why some community members insists on a different interpretation when no other interpretation is possible.
That’s not entirely accurate. In crypto, especially with vesting and smart contracts, it’s very possible for only a portion of already distributed tokens to be transferable, even if they’ve been sent to wallets. Distribution ≠ full unlock.
Many projects distribute tokens to wallets in advance but restrict transferability through locking mechanisms — whether via smart contracts or legal agreements. So it’s completely valid to ask whether “distributed” also means “freely transferable.” The interpretation is not as fixed as you claim.
If the team meant all distributed tokens become transferable immediately, they should state that clearly — because in crypto, those are two very different things.
The tokens were distributed immediately upon purchase. Furthermore, there was NO clause about vesting in the sale agreement. The team can not retroactively apply vesting conditions.
It’s very easy:
25% of supply was sold in pre-sale 1 & 2, of which nearly 10% was sold a few entities
this means retail controls about 15% of total supply
30% is held by initial supporters
2.5% is held by the team
rest is reserved for future incentives
Suppose 10% of that 30% is unlocked. That would mean:
10% of circulating supply held by 3 entities
10% held by a few large investors (Justin Sun, DWF Labs, etc.)
15% held by 86000 pre-sale participants
= 35% total circulating supply
In this scenario, which is the one I assume is the most likely, retail already holds the minority share. However, you, and several others who have misinterpreted the proposal, want that supply to be further reduced?! You even call for 20% of supply to be released, which would mean only 2% of total circulating supply held by retail! This is entirely unrealistic and unfair.
What matters is that there were zero provisions for vesting/cliff in the sale agreement. 100% of pre-sale tokens will become transferable. The unlock is about the 30% allocated for initial/early supporters. This is the only possible interpretation of the proposal – anyone else advocating for something else has not read it properly.
You’re right — letting price discovery unfold naturally is important and aligns with the decentralized ethos of blockchain.
That said, my goal in raising this is to explore the best-case scenario and invite a broader discussion. WLFI, in my opinion, is positioned to be fundamentally different from most projects, both in terms of structure and backing.
With the recent launch of USD1 — a T-bill-backed stablecoin — and a DeFi ecosystem aimed at bridging traditional finance with crypto, not merely mimicking TradFi but evolving it, WLFI has the potential to reshape how we think about decentralized finance.
If adoption grows and the project continues aligning with regulatory and institutional frameworks, it could signal the beginning of a new chapter in DeFi.
That’s what makes this conversation valuable — while still respecting organic market movement.
Based on this model:
POLL: What unlock scenario would YOU support for WLFI’s first tradable day?
Reference image attached below for detailed analysis.