Community complaints about centralized voting mechanisms on the WLFI platform

Friction has recently ignited within the World Liberty Financial (WLFI) platform community following a governance vote that raised questions about the true decentralization and fairness of decision-making mechanisms. According to reports from PANews and Cointelegraph last January, the platform faced sharp criticism from a broad segment of holders regarding how the vote on the proposal to expand the USD1 stablecoin was conducted.

Limited Control Over Voting Rights

Data pulled from the blockchain reveals a concerning concentration of power in the hands of a few addresses. The top nine wallets alone hold approximately 59% of the total voting rights, with the largest wallet alone accounting for 18.786% of the votes. This uneven distribution reflects a high degree of centralization within the voting process itself, raising serious questions about the actual value of this democratic mechanism.

The anonymous DeFi^2 researcher pointed out that influential and decisive votes in favor of the proposal mostly came from addresses directly linked to the project team and its strategic partners, further fueling doubts about the independence and neutrality of the voting process.

Locked Holders: Excluded from Decision-Making

One of the most controversial aspects of the crisis is the exclusion of a large segment of ordinary investors who hold WLFI tokens that are locked (non-transferable immediately) from the voting process entirely. This exemption means that long-term holders—who are presumed to be most concerned with the project’s interests—were deprived of a voice in a decision that directly affects the value of their investments.

Critics argue that the WLFI team should focus its efforts on resolving issues related to lock-up periods for investors rather than pushing proposals that could only further dilute the rights of original token holders.

Income Distribution and Decentralization: An Obvious Contradiction

What deepens the crisis is the income distribution structure within the WLFI protocol, which reveals deeper problems. According to the project’s official documents, 75% of the protocol’s net income is directed to an entity linked to the Trump family, while the remaining 25% goes to an entity associated with the Witkoff family. Meanwhile, WLFI token holders do not receive any direct share of this income.

This structure widens the gap between claims of decentralization and the actual control and profitability. Voting on governance issues while the real economic benefits are monopolized by certain parties intensifies the sense of injustice among community members.

In conclusion, this incident highlights real challenges in achieving true decentralization and demonstrates how poorly designed voting mechanisms can reinforce concentration rather than distribute power.