I am following an interesting movement in WLFI that clearly shows the tensions the project is facing. World Liberty Financial announced a new vesting and token burn plan, and this is not just any technical adjustment — it’s a direct response to holder pressure and internal conflicts that have become quite public.

The scenario is as follows: the platform proposes to lock 62.28 billion WLFI under unlock schedules that will extend over several years. Early supporters would face a 2-year cliff, followed by another 2 years of gradual release. Founders, team members, advisors, and partners would face a 2-year lock followed by 3 years of linear vesting. Those who do not accept these terms will be permanently locked out. It’s a very clear way to put pressure on for compliance.

There is also a possibility of burning up to 4.52 billion WLFI tokens — representing 10% of insider allocations. The idea apparently is to show that the project is trying to control future dilution and respond to governance concerns. But it’s interesting that the burn only affects these specific groups, not the entire token base.

What led to this? Basically, early holders started to complain heavily about prolonged locks and lack of liquidity. The situation escalated when Justin Sun, who had already invested $30 million in the project, publicly criticized the lack of transparency and complained that governance votes were controlled by a few wallets. Sun questioned who really had decision-making power there. The platform’s response was to threaten to sue him.

But what makes things more tense is the activity of the treasury. Wallets linked to the project used billions of tokens as collateral to borrow about $75 million in stablecoins. This raised questions about who controls these wallets and how much influence they truly have. Sun warned about the potential freezing of tokens by key entities.

The WLFI price recently dropped to an all-time low, which only intensified these discussions. It is currently around $0.08, far from the ATH of $1.10. All of this together shows a project navigating complex dynamics of governance, trust, and supply control. It’s worth watching how holders will react to this proposal.