Recently, many projects have been adjusting their tokenomics. The core ideas are also pretty similar:

Reduce circulation as much as possible, delay unlocks, and first suppress expectations of future selling pressure.
I just reviewed WLFI @worldlibertyfi’s proposal, and it basically revolves around these three things: burning, lock-ups, and linear releases.
If we condense the entire proposal, there are two core focuses.
The first focus is that team-related tokens should be burned first, and then enter ultra-long-term vesting.
In this proposal, the number of locked tokens for founders, the team, advisors, and partners totals approximately 45.24 billion WLFI.
If the new plan is accepted, you need to permanently burn 10% of those first—that is, up to 4.52 billion WLFI. The remaining 90% will start unlocking gradually from the second year, and will be fully released by the fifth year.
/
The second focus is that early supporters do not burn their tokens, but they also must accept lock-ups over a longer cycle.
This part involves approximately 17.04 billion WLFI. There is no burning involved, but they will start unlocking in the second year and be fully released in the fourth year.
Additionally, if the relevant holders do not proactively accept the new plan, these tokens will continue to be locked indefinitely.
//
I think this proposal can be viewed from three perspectives.
First, fundamentally, it is about managing future selling pressure in advance.
For many projects, the problem is not how much is circulating right now, but whether the market is worried that there could be a sudden large-scale unlock later.
In this round, WLFI has included roughly 62.28 billion tokens into a long-term arrangement from year 2 to year 5. The team also additionally burns 10% of that, which helps reduce these concerns and makes future supply expectations clearer.
/
Second, the most heavily constrained group here is the team, not the community.
The only parts that truly need to be mandatorily burned are the team, advisors, and partners.
The team itself first agrees to stricter conditions. Constraining itself first is indeed more convincing than merely advocating long-termism.
/
Third, it’s not just adjusting tokenomics—it also looks like a statement of long-term governance.
Many projects will also change release schedules or add lock-ups, but the real difference is whether these commitments can be put on-chain and written into clear rules.
The significance of WLFI’s proposal this time is to turn verbal commitments into governance arrangements that are verifiable and executable.
//
Objectively speaking, burning and long-term lock-ups do help ease future circulation pressure and improve market expectations;
but on the other hand, optimizing a token mechanism does not automatically translate into the project’s value being realized.
Whether WLFI can truly convert this governance signal into long-term value later ultimately depends on ecosystem progress, product usage, and the market’s continued recognition of its fundamentals.