World Liberty Financial (WLFI)—the crypto project linked to the Trump family—is drawing renewed backlash after advancing a proposal that would keep some early investors’ WLFI tokens locked and unusable for trading for an extended period.
The situation has also triggered strong condemnation from Tron founder Justin Sun, who took to X (formerly Twitter) to describe the venture as “World Tyranny,” arguing that the proposal is not true governance but instead a mechanism for coercion.
World Liberty Financial Proposal Sparks Outcry
At the heart of the controversy is the proposal’s treatment of early investors. Under the plan, those who hold tokens acquired early would be required to agree to keep most of their WLFI holdings locked—meaning they would not be available for trading—for an additional two years.
After that initial lock-up, the World Liberty Financial proposal states that investors would begin receiving their tokens gradually over the subsequent two-year period.
Under the terms outlined in the proposal, anyone who does not agree to the plan would see their tokens locked “indefinitely,” with no clear route to regain access.
Sun—who had previously been a major supporter of World Liberty Financial—said the proposal is being dressed up with language about “governance alignment” and “long-term commitment.” In his view, the framing is misleading.
He argues that beneath the rhetoric, the structure amounts to a trap: if holders vote against the proposal, they are “punished” through an indefinite lock with no future unlocking mechanism.
In other words, Sun says the vote is not a genuine decision-making process but an enforcement tool. He characterized it as coercion rather than governance, saying it rewards agreement while penalizing dissent.
Sun Calls It A Rights Violation
Sun also claims that the World Liberty Financial proposal restricts who can participate meaningfully in the voting process. He says he personally holds around 4% of the voting power, yet his tokens have been frozen, preventing him from effectively participating in the vote.
Another of Sun’s strongest objections also centers on what he describes as the scale of the assets at stake. He argues that the proposal is not a minor parameter change or routine protocol update.
Instead, he says it aims to determine an unlock schedule for assets worth billions, alter reallocation of governance and vesting rights, and, in the most extreme case, permanently destroy billions of tokens.
He portrays this as a direct violation of property rights, arguing that under a design where voting against the proposal leads to indefinite punishment, where many holders may be frozen out, and where contract control rests with anonymous wallets, the legitimacy of any vote is severely undermined.
In his view, such actions are incompatible with the protections normally required when large holders’ interests are permanently altered, especially when minority protections, due process, and independent review would be expected in traditional markets.
Sun further argues that because token burning would permanently destroy holders’ tokens without compensation or recourse, the World Liberty Financial proposal represents an irreversible expropriation rather than a legitimate community decision.
For Tron’s founder, these conditions mean the results should not be treated as legitimate or recognized in the way a real governance process would be.