Разбор скандала вокруг проекта LIBRA: системные риски, связанные с одобрением криптовалют политическими деятелями

7 April 2026, The New York Times disclosed an investigation report that shook the crypto industry and the global political arena. On the night of 14 February 2025 when Argentina’s President Javier Milei’s LIBRA token went live, there were 7 recorded phone calls between him and Mauricio Novelli, a key figure in the project. The timestamps precisely covered the period just before and after he posted promotional content on the X platform.

This news has pushed the crypto scandal that has been simmering for more than a year back into the center of public attention—it is no longer merely a “Rug Pull” scam, but a landmark event that is gradually evolving into a test of political trust and the industry’s regulatory bottom line.

Why Presidential Endorsements Have Become a New Paradigm for Meme Coin Harvesting

Over the past two years, the operating logic of the Meme coin market has undergone a significant paradigm shift. In January 2025, TRUMP—the token issued by former U.S. President Donald Trump—saw its market cap surge to nearly $80 billion within two days, creating an unprecedented “presidential-level” ceiling for the Meme track. Less than a month later, Milei followed this path: on 14 February 2025, he publicly promoted the LIBRA token via the X platform, claiming the project would be used to support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Argentina.

The essence of this pattern lies in this: politicians’ social media accounts have become a new kind of “trust infrastructure.” Public endorsements by leaders of sovereign states, in an environment of information asymmetry, are treated by investors as a kind of quasi-institutional credit guarantee. However, this very trust anchor is the easiest harvesting tool for the project team to exploit. After Milei’s tweet went out, LIBRA’s market cap soared to more than $4 billion within half an hour, but then dropped 85% in just four hours, with over $4 billion in market value evaporating. This “tweet—pump—cash out—crash” rhythm exposes systemic manipulation risks in celebrity-endorsed token issuance.

From Tweets to Phone Calls: How Information Gaps Drive Market Manipulation

The investigative developments in the Milei case reveal a deeper problem: the driving mechanism of market manipulation may be far more complex and covert than the public imagines. According to The New York Times, phone forensics information obtained by investigators shows that the 7 call records between Milei and Novelli are distributed across multiple time points around Milei’s tweeting. In addition to the call records, the investigation also found documents that appear to include payment recordings and drafted funding arrangements.

Earlier investigations had already pointed to a more specific chain of interests. Argentina’s media outlet El Destape disclosed a document recovered from Novelli’s phone, detailing a $5 million payment agreement. The agreement specifies three installments of payment: $1.5 million as an advance payment; $1.5 million, conditional on Milei announcing Hayden Davis as his adviser on the X platform; and finally $2 million, which is linked to a blockchain government consulting contract signed by Milei and his sister. The creation date of this document is 11 February 2025—three days before Milei posted the tweet.

On-chain data further validates traces of such insider operations. Eight wallets associated with the project had already stashed funds before the tweet was posted, and during the crash period they cashed out $107 million. 86% of traders lost money after investing in LIBRA, with cumulative losses of about $251 million. When there is a systematic time lag and information gap between public information (tweets) and private communications (phone calls, payment agreements), the basic conditions for market manipulation are already fully in place. This is not just the misconduct of one individual, but a verified and replicable harvesting model.

When a Head of State Is Drawn Into a Scam: How High Is the Price of Political Trust?

The structural costs brought by the Milei LIBRA scandal have extended beyond economic losses for investors into a political credibility crisis in Argentina. On 16 February 2025—the day after the LIBRA crash—Argentina’s opposition lawmakers filed a collective lawsuit against Milei, alleging that his actions may have violated the “Public Morals Act” and constituted “riding a rug.” In November of the same year, the Argentine Congress’s legislative committee released an investigation report, concluding that Milei provided “critical collaboration” for the project and recommending that Congress assess his actions.

In March 2026, as the $5 million payment agreement was exposed, opposition lawmakers pushed for impeachment proceedings again, saying the scandal had caused serious harm internationally. Milei had previously been ruled by Argentina’s anti-corruption office in June 2025 as not violating public ethics norms—because the tweets were considered “personal actions” rather than official actions—but the credibility of that ruling has been called into question as new evidence continues to emerge.

More concerning are the institutional ripple effects. Soon after a judge ordered the unsealing of Milei and his sister’s bank records, Milei’s government also dissolved the special task force responsible for investigating the LIBRA scandal. This “investigation advances—information is unsealed—task force is dissolved” pattern indicates not only personal moral issues, but the system-level response of power structures when facing a crisis. On the Polymarket prediction platform, the probability of “Milei leaving office in 2025” once rose from 5% before the event to 20%. A national leader facing a political survival crisis due to the collapse of a crypto project has no precedent worldwide.

How the LIBRA Scandal May Reshape the Trust Boundaries of the Crypto Industry

From an industry perspective, the LIBRA event may be reshaping the underlying trust structure of the crypto market. On-chain data shows that since the LIBRA harvesting incident occurred, liquidity on the Solana chain dropped sharply from about $12.1 billion to $8.29 billion, and the SOL price also fell by more than 20%. About 75k users were affected by the LIBRA flash crash, with total losses of about $286 million, and the number of losing users exceeds 86% of all traders.

The market trust crisis triggered by this event may accelerate changes in two aspects of the industry. First, investors’ vigilance toward “celebrity endorsements” will increase significantly. When a country’s presidential token endorsement can complete the full cycle of “pump—sell-off—crash” within hours, the market’s valuation logic for celebrity coins will be forced to be rebuilt. Second, the expected intensity of regulators’ involvement will continue to rise. In February 2025, an Argentine law firm filed criminal lawsuits with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, accusing the LIBRA team of涉嫌 cross-border securities fraud. If the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) intervenes to investigate insider trading and establishes that Milei was aware, it could even trigger discussion of extradition provisions.

From Argentina to the World: Three Evolution Paths for the Risk of Political Endorsements

Based on current investigative progress and industry conditions, there are three main scenarios for how the Milei LIBRA scandal might evolve.

Scenario 1: Escalation of the investigation and international regulatory coordination. The level of intervention by U.S. regulators will be a key variable. If the SEC or the Department of Justice characterizes LIBRA as a securities fraud case, it could lead to a large-scale review of cross-border token issuance patterns involving celebrity endorsements. There are signs that among the five major crypto controversy events listed in the 2025 Forbes roundup, the issuance of Meme coins by political figures has occupied an important position, and regulatory attention to such patterns is rapidly increasing.

Scenario 2: Political cleansing and institutional repair. Within Argentina, Milei faces dual pressures of impeachment and judicial investigations. Even if Milei can continue in office, this scandal may still force Argentina to introduce clear regulations targeting public officials’ participation in crypto projects. If such legislation goes first, other Latin American countries may follow, creating a regional regulatory ripple effect.

Scenario 3: Industry self-purification and standard-setting. From the market perspective, the Meme coin sector may need to go through a bubble purge. Some industry observers point out that the LIBRA event could become a time node for “letting the market calm down for a while and truly discover some valuable projects.” But the speed and depth of self-purification depend on the collective improvement of investor education, exchange risk-control standards, and information disclosure mechanisms.

From Individual Cases to Systemic Risk: Three Blind Spots Still Worth Watching

Although the LIBRA scandal has exposed many problems with token endorsements by political figures, the following three potential risks may still be underestimated.

First, the completeness of the evidence chain and the difficulty of accountability. The evidence obtained by the current investigation—7 call records, a $5 million payment agreement, recordings and documents from mobile phone forensics—still has uncertainty regarding its evidentiary strength in legal proceedings. The Milei side continues to deny wrongdoing, while investigators have not yet confirmed the specific content of the calls. Without direct evidence proving that the president himself was aware of and involved in the cash-out plan, the legal threshold for criminal prosecution remains high.

Second, the replicability of the pattern and regulatory blind spots across borders. LIBRA is not an isolated case. From MELANIA to TRUMP, and now this scandal, a “celebrity endorsement—social media hype trigger—insider cash-out—project crash” operating process has been verified multiple times. Such scams often take advantage of regulatory gaps across different jurisdictions: promoting in Argentina, issuing on the Solana chain, and trading on offshore exchanges, making cross-border pursuit extremely difficult.

Third, the long-term persistence of information gaps. Even if the LIBRA event becomes a cautionary case, similar patterns may still appear in the future in new variants. Politicians’ social media accounts have irreplaceable traffic distribution capabilities, while ordinary investors’ disadvantage in information access channels can hardly be fully compensated for through individual effort. As long as this asymmetry exists, the inherent risks of politically endorsed tokens will not disappear.

Summary

The LIBRA project scandal, which began as a “rug pull” incident in the crypto market, gradually evolved into a watershed test of Argentina’s political institutions and the trust mechanisms of the global industry. The exposure of seven call records and the payment agreement pushed presidential endorsement from the level of “market narrative” into the level of “investigative evidence.” For the crypto industry, the event reveals a more fundamental challenge: when the anchor of trust—public endorsements by political figures—may itself be systematically manipulated, market participants need a more reliable trust mechanism. Improvements to the regulatory framework, increased on-chain transparency, and strengthened investors’ risk awareness may be the three most worth discussing agendas after this storm.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What happened after the LIBRA token was issued?

A: On 14 February 2025, Argentina’s President Milei promoted the LIBRA token on the X platform. The token price surged rapidly, and its market cap briefly exceeded $4 billion. Then, wallets associated with the project withdrew liquidity at scale and sold the tokens, cashing out about $107 million, causing the token price to crash more than 90% and resulting in severe losses for investors.

Q: What new evidence did The New York Times disclose?

A: The New York Times reported that phone call records found by investigators show that on the night of 14 February 2025 when LIBRA launched, there were 7 calls between Milei and Novelli, a figure from the project, with timestamps covering the period before and after he published the promotional post. The phone forensics information also includes documents that appear to include suspected payment recordings and drafted funding arrangements.

Q: What legal consequences is Milei currently facing?

A: Milei has already been sued collectively in Argentina for promoting the LIBRA token, and opposition lawmakers have repeatedly pushed for impeachment proceedings. A federal investigation has listed Milei as a “person of interest.” In the U.S., a law firm has also filed criminal lawsuits with the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, accusing the LIBRA team of涉嫌 cross-border securities fraud.

Q: What long-term impacts does the LIBRA scandal have on the crypto industry?

A: The event may significantly reduce investors’ trust in tokens backed by celebrities, while also prompting regulators in different countries to strengthen scrutiny of similar issuance patterns. After the LIBRA event, liquidity on the Solana chain fell sharply, and the overall activity in the Meme coin sector was also hit.

Q: How can one identify the risk of similar politically endorsed tokens?

A: Investors should watch for the following: whether the project has publicly available technical whitepapers and compliance safeguards; whether team identity is transparent; whether the on-chain liquidity pool has any abnormal locking mechanism; whether there is a rapid “tweet—pump—cash out” schedule; and whether the project team is operating across multiple jurisdictions to evade regulation.