wlfi

Ragazzi, ora abbiamo ufficialmente iniziato! Sono stato così occupato da perdermi, solo ora riesco a riprendermi, e quando ho controllato ho visto che USD1 era stato shortato e attaccato con false voci.
Anch'io ho sempre investito in USD1, quindi quando ho visto la notizia mi sono un po' preoccupato e sono subito andato a controllare la situazione.
In effetti, questa volta si tratta di qualcuno che sta creando problemi: ha hackerato l'account del fondatore, ha comprato influencer per creare tensione e poi ha fatto short per far crollare il mercato, cercando di generare panico e far vendere in massa.
Ma alla fine non è successo nulla, i contratti, i portafogli e i fondi sono tutti a posto, USD1 è stabile, la riserva 1:1 non è stata toccata, il prezzo rimane stabile.

World Liberty Financial (WLFI) has introduced a governance proposal that would require holders to stake unlocked $WLFI tokens in order to participate in voting.

At its core, this is a shift in how influence is earned.

Instead of simply holding tokens, participants would need to lock them into a staking mechanism before gaining voting rights. That changes incentives in several ways.

Why require staking to vote?

The proposal appears designed to:

Encourage long-term alignment

Reduce passive or short-term governance manipulation

Reward active ecosystem participation

Filter out speculative holders from decision-making

By staking tokens, voters signal commitment. Locked tokens reduce immediate liquidity, which theoretically aligns governance power with long-term stakeholders rather than short-term traders.

This model has become more common in decentralized finance. It attempts to solve a recurring problem: token holders who vote opportunistically without deeper involvement.

Key implications

1️⃣ Reduced circulating supply pressure
If governance participation requires staking, more tokens may become temporarily illiquid.

2️⃣ Higher barrier to participation
Smaller holders may be discouraged from voting if staking mechanics feel complex or restrictive.

3️⃣ Governance concentration risk
If only large holders are willing or able to stake meaningfully, influence could consolidate.

4️⃣ Incentivized participation
The proposal also suggests rewarding governance involvement, which may increase turnout and activity.

The structural trend

Across DeFi, governance models are evolving from simple “1 token = 1 vote” toward more structured systems:

Staking-based voting

Tiered participation

Reputation or participation scoring

Delegation mechanisms

Projects are learning that pure token-weight voting can be gamed or underutilized.

Requiring staking attempts to introduce friction — and friction often improves alignment.

The bigger question

The success of this proposal depends on execution:

How long must tokens be locked?

Are there slashing risks?

Are rewards sustainable?

How transparent is the governance process?

Governance systems work best when participation is simple but meaningful. Too much complexity discourages voters. Too little structure invites manipulation.

This move signals that #WLFI is prioritizing structured governance over passive token ownership.

If you’d like, I can break down how staking-for-voting models compare to delegated governance systems in terms of decentralization and voter turnout.

#JaneStreet10AMDump #MarketRebound