World Liberty Financial’s (WLFI) latest governance proposal — tied to the Trump family — has sparked a fresh wave of criticism after it advanced measures that would lock up large swaths of early investors’ WLFI tokens and potentially make dissenters’ holdings unusable indefinitely.
What the proposal would do
- Early investors who opt in would be required to keep most of their WLFI holdings locked for an additional two years.
- After that initial two-year lock-up, tokens would be distributed gradually across a subsequent two-year vesting period.
- Holders who refuse to agree to the plan would face an “indefinite” lock on their tokens, with no clear path to regain access, according to the proposal text.
Justin Sun: “World Tyranny”
Tron founder Justin Sun — who had previously been a major supporter of World Liberty Financial — took to X (formerly Twitter) to lambast the plan, calling the venture “World Tyranny.” Sun argued the proposal is being presented under the guise of “governance alignment” and “long-term commitment,” but in reality functions as coercion: vote no and your tokens are effectively punished with indefinite freezing, he said.
Sun also says the proposal restricts meaningful participation in the vote. He claims to hold roughly 4% of voting power but that his tokens are frozen, preventing him from voting effectively. He added the proposal would decide unlock schedules for assets worth billions, reallocate governance and vesting rights, and could even permanently burn large amounts of tokens — steps he characterized as an attack on property rights.
Why Sun says the vote lacks legitimacy
- Punishing dissent with indefinite locks undermines the notion of a voluntary governance decision, Sun argues.
- The scale of the assets at stake — potentially billions — means such changes would normally demand minority protections, due process, and independent review, none of which Sun says are evident.
- He noted that control over relevant contracts appears to rest with anonymous wallets, further eroding confidence in the process.
- Because token burning would permanently destroy holders’ assets without compensation or recourse, Sun described the proposal as an irreversible expropriation rather than a legitimate community decision.
Reaction and next steps
The proposal’s advancement has intensified scrutiny of WLFI’s governance and token-management practices, with high-profile critics casting doubt on whether the move can be considered genuine decentralized governance. As the debate continues, market participants and observers will be watching whether the proposal passes and what legal, market or community responses follow.
Image: OpenArt. Chart: TradingView.com.
Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
