Due to previous public opinion, WLFI's move this time is still quite significant, and it is also a design of mandatory standing and consensus screening Either accept the new rules and lock for a period of time to release+team burn coins, or refuse and lock for life, don't even think about moving. Force everyone to choose a long-term stance and then select players who are willing to accompany them for a long time The key here is that the team locks in for 2 years and slowly releases for 3 years, which is similar to the user's 2-year lock in and 2-year release The team and early users are tied up and locked in the same boat, surviving for 2 years and landing together. The team first burns 10% to show sincerity and reduce the pressure of selling chips in the future If you don't want to bind, just lock it for life In the current market environment, there is a benefit to doing so, which is to optimize the structure of interests, kick out those who play short-term games, and leave only those who are willing to accompany them I don't think there is much correlation between this and USD1, mainly to stabilize the expectations of WLFI, provide a clear rigid rule, and solve the current trust problem and future selling pressure of WLFI Due to the WLFI FUD incident, whether true or false, it has had some impact on the trust of USD1, leading to unstable expectations for USD1 and affecting its progress. USD1 is the core of the entire WLFI ecosystem and affects USD1. Therefore, everyone should not play with it My point of view is that only with the rise of USD1 can WLFI have a future. This governance proposal may impact the interests of some people, but it is beneficial for the development of USD1. Otherwise, WLFI will remain stuck here and weakening USD1's trust will not be worth the loss. This two-year lock up has indirectly given USD1 a window for stable development for two years, and the next step is to fully develop USD1