World Liberty Financial, the crypto platform linked to the Trump family, is facing intense criticism after proposing a revised lockup schedule for early WLFI investors that could extend restrictions by years — and, for those who refuse the new terms, potentially indefinitely.
Under the governance proposal posted on the platform forum, WLFI tokens held by early backers would remain locked for an additional two years and then be distributed in batches over the next two years. The proposal also says tokenholders who do not accept the new schedule would continue to have their tokens locked indefinitely.
The move prompted public rebukes from major figures in crypto. Justin Sun, an adviser to World Liberty and its largest investor, posted on social media that the plan is one of the most extreme governance abuses he has seen. Sun said his roughly 4 percent stake is currently frozen, and that the threat of indefinite locks amounts to coercion that also sidelines frozen holders from governance voting.
Simon Dedic, founder of Moonrock Capital, said early WLFI investors who expected to realize gains have effectively been left stranded, arguing the proposal gives the platform another opportunity to capture value from any remaining token momentum.
World Liberty Financial did not provide extended answers to questions about the backlash. Spokesman David Wachsman said by email that the proposal was intended to better align participants in the WLFI ecosystem for the long term and noted that voting would begin soon and run for a week.
Market reaction has been muted but negative: WLFI traded around $0.08 over the past 24 hours and is down more than 40 percent so far this year amid broader market weakness. The token has fallen more than 75 percent from its all-time high of $0.33, which it reached on September 1, the day public trading began after holders approved making the token tradable.
The current dispute comes after earlier tensions between Justin Sun and World Liberty, including public disagreements over a separate governance proposal and accusations that the platform might blacklist wallets, an allegation the company denied. The latest episode underscores growing scrutiny around token control, voting rights, and how crypto projects tied to prominent political figures are governed and managed.