Originally written by Jake Simmons. Source: NewsBTC
World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a DeFi project linked with the Trump brand, has recently come under scrutiny following a controversial governance vote. Concerns have been raised regarding a "slow" extraction of value from WLFI token holders, notably by a prominent trader known as DeFiSquared, who is ranked the top trader on Bybit for 2023 and 2024.
Allegations of a Rigged Vote
DeFiSquared highlighted an unusual governance vote outcome, suggesting that the majority of influential voters were linked to team or strategic partner wallets, unlike the general public holders. Public holders reportedly remain locked out from accessing or voting with their WLFI tokens since the Token Generation Event (TGE), raising questions about vote legitimacy.
The controversial proposal, referred to as the "USD1 growth proposal," appeared ordinary on the surface but raised suspicion due to the timing and forced passage. The query: why prioritize this proposal instead of addressing the pending WLFI token unlock that many holders demand?
Tokenomics and Governance Concerns
According to DeFiSquared, WLFI holders receive no protocol revenue. The project's "Gold Paper" elucidates that 75% of protocol revenue is allocated to the Trump family, with 25% going to the Witkoff family. This structure seemingly incentivizes the team to advance initiatives that benefit themselves at the cost of locked public holders.
Moreover, it was claimed that as the vote neared quorum, it was failing, only to be pushed through by team and partner votes. Token allocation further compounds concerns: the WLFI team controls 33.5% of tokens, strategic partners hold 5.85%, while the public sale represents just 20%.
On-Chain Movements and Market Implications
Post-vote, on-chain token transfers, such as a transaction of 500 million WLFI tokens to Jump Trading, suggest active distribution among insiders. Meanwhile, public investor allocations remain locked, limiting their influence.
From a valuation standpoint, DeFiSquared questions the intrinsic value of WLFI, describing the token as lacking genuine governance power or revenue share rights while facing sell pressure from those closest to the project. Consequently, he has taken a short position on WLFI, citing dilution and intentional value extraction as primary risks.
Industry Context
This case emphasizes the complexities and risks inherent in DeFi governance and tokenomics. For developers and infrastructure providers in crypto mining and blockchain, understanding governance dynamics is critical. Companies like OneMiners and IceRiver.eu provide crypto mining hardware and infrastructure that emphasize transparency and reliability, contrasting with controversial governance issues seen in some DeFi projects.
What are your thoughts on governance transparency in DeFi projects? Have you encountered similar challenges with token governance or value extraction? Share your experiences below!
Top comments (0)