World Liberty Financial (WLFI) is facing growing criticism after unveiling a new token unlock proposal that has left many investors uneasy. What was initially presented as a plan to bring structure and long-term stability to the project has instead sparked a wave of concern over fairness, transparency, and control. At the heart of the issue is a proposal to restructure how tens of billions of WLFI tokens would be released to investors. While token vesting is not unusual in crypto, the specific terms outlined here have raised eyebrows across the community. A long wait for investors The proposal suggests unlocking more than 60 billion tokens through a strict vesting schedule, which, instead of providing immediate access, introduces a prolonged waiting period. Investors would first face an initial lock-up of about two years. After that, tokens would be released gradually over an additional two-year period. In practical terms, this means a large portion of investors may not gain full access to their holdings until close to the end of the decade. For many early backers, this came as an unwelcome surprise. A significant share of tokens, estimated at around 80% for some participants, would remain inaccessible for an extended period. This sharply limits their ability to exit positions or respond to market conditions. To soften the impact, the proposal also includes a token burn of roughly 10%, which is intended to reduce overall supply and support price stability. Still, for investors who were expecting more flexibility, this has done little to ease concerns. The frustration is not just about timing. It is also about expectations. Many participants feel the rules are being changed after they have already committed capital, which has led to questions about trust. Governance concerns come to the surface The backlash intensified when governance issues entered the conversation. Tron founder Justin Sun, in a post on X , argues that the proposal is not just restrictive but also structured in a way that limits genuine participation. One of the most serious allegations is that voting on the proposal may not be entirely fair. Sun claims that certain large holders have been prevented from voting altogether, raising doubts about whether the outcome of the decision is truly representative of the community. Even more controversial is the suggestion that rejecting the proposal could come with consequences. According to Sun, those who vote against it risk having their tokens locked indefinitely. If true, this would transform governance from a decision-making process into something closer to a forced choice. These concerns have fueled the argument that control over the project may be concentrated in the hands of a small group. Despite being presented as a decentralised finance initiative, the structure appears, to some observers, more centralised than expected. Questions about control and incentives Beyond the immediate controversy, the situation has also raised broader questions about how the project is structured. Reports indicate that a large portion of the revenue generated from token sales is directed to insiders, including entities linked to the project’s leadership. This has added another layer of unease, particularly when combined with the strict token lock-ups imposed on regular investors. There are also concerns about how funds have been used, especially after the project reportedly borrowed significant amounts using its own token as collateral , a move that introduces additional financial risk. Taken together, these elements have created a perception that the balance of power may be tilted away from the broader investor base. This has already affected sentiment around the project, causing the WLFI token to fall 14% in a week. The post WLFI faces backlash over a new token unlock proposal appeared first on Invezz
