Brother Sun "Rights Protection" Stands Up Against the Trump Family, WLFI Is the Real Scythe in the Crypto Circle

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-04-13Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-13

Анотація

The article details the controversy surrounding World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a cryptocurrency project linked to the Trump family. It reports that WLFI allegedly used the DeFi lending protocol Dolomite, whose co-founder is also a WLFI advisor, as a disguised channel to sell tokens by collateralizing around 5 billion WLFI tokens to borrow approximately $75 million in stablecoins. Despite WLFI's claims that the loans were for ecosystem development and posed no liquidation risk, critics argue it was a way for insiders to cash out, shifting risk to retail investors. The piece highlights WLFI's significant price decline—over 66% since its September 2025 launch—and suggests the Trump family and insiders are the main source of selling pressure, as they control nearly 74% of the token supply. It also revisits WLFI’s prior move to blacklist 272 addresses, including those of investor Justin Sun, under the pretext of preventing large-scale sell-offs, which now appears to be an effort to reduce competition for their own sales. Sun publicly accused WLFI of exploiting users, freezing assets, and treating the crypto community as a "personal ATM." WLFI countered by threatening legal action. The author notes that while Sun’s criticism may gain sympathy, a legal battle in the U.S. against the well-connected Trump family would be risky for him. Finally, the article concludes that WLFI exemplifies how powerful elites can exploit crypto’s regulatory gray areas for profit, and urges the commu...

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Golem (@web3_golem)

The true face of WLFI has finally been seen clearly by the crypto circle.

On April 9th, foreign media reported that the Trump family's crypto project, World Liberty Financial (WLFI), had conducted multiple collateralized loans through the DeFi lending protocol Dolomite, sparking market concerns about insider trading and USD1 liquidity risks. According to statistics, WLFI used approximately 5 billion WLFI tokens as collateral and mobilized about 75 million USD in stablecoins cumulatively through Dolomite and Coinbase Prime.

Coincidentally, Dolomite co-founder Corey Caplan is also an advisor to WLFI. Although WLFI responded that borrowing stablecoins was to create value for the ecosystem and there was no liquidation risk, and WLFI even repaid 25 million USD1 loans on April 11th, tracking the on-chain path of the borrowed stablecoins makes it clear to anyone that Dolomite is essentially a disguised token selling channel for the WLFI team.

Well-known trader Pickle Cat also believes that WLFI is performing a confidence trick by buying back at high prices with the left hand while borrowing real money with low-value collateral with the right hand. In the end, only the retail investors locked in the Dolomite pool are bearing the risk, so she decisively chose to liquidate all her WLFI spot holdings.

WLFI's price performance since its listing has already said it all. WLFI officially launched on September 1, 2025, and began executing token buybacks in late September of the same year. However, the token has since fallen by over 66%, down about 70% from its peak. So, where is the selling pressure in the market coming from? Most likely from the Trump family and their related interests. Firstly, because it's unlikely they only have Dolomite as one disguised selling channel. Secondly, only they hold large amounts of WLFI tokens and can "sell without restrictions."

Even before WLFI officially launched, Odaily Planet Daily had analyzed WLFI's token holding structure and selling pressure, concluding that the Trump family was the largest source of selling pressure. Out of a total supply of 100 billion tokens, the pre-sale accounted for only 26.05%, while the remaining 73.95% was entirely controlled by the team. (Related reading:WLFI Unlock Countdown: Trump's 15.75% Whale Holdings, Can the Market Withstand the "Presidential Selling Pressure"?)

Furthermore, after the WLFI token officially launched, the team blacklisted 272 addresses, including addresses belonging to Sun Yuchen, under the pretext of protecting user funds and preventing large-scale selling by whales. This move was applauded by the community at the time. But only now, faced with the continuous decline of WLFI, have we come to our senses: the real purpose of freezing the whale addresses was to facilitate their own selling.

The story doesn't end here. After the WLFI team's actions were exposed, Sun Yuchen couldn't sit still anymore. The renowned "Sun Cut" (Sun Ge) doesn't take losses like this—only you can sell, but I can't? So he confronted WLFI once more.

Sun Yuchen Confronts WLFI Again

On April 12th, Sun Yuchen posted on platform X, condemning the WLFI team for extracting fees from users, secretly implanting backdoors to control user assets, freezing investor funds, and using the crypto community as a personal ATM, among other actions. The WLFI team didn't just let Sun's accusations slide; they responded by saying Sun Yuchen is best at playing the victim, fabricating baseless accusations to cover up his own misconduct, and stated they would see him in court.

To understand this drama, we need to review the relationship between Sun Yuchen and WLFI.

WLFI and Sun Yuchen had a honeymoon period. In November 2024, Sun Yuchen announced an investment of 30 million USD into WLFI through the entity TRON DAO, becoming WLFI's largest investor and project advisor at the time. This deal was interpreted then as a political donation from Sun Yuchen to Trump, especially since Trump's election as president was already a foregone conclusion, and crypto figures wanted to build good relations. So it was a win-win: WLFI got the money, and Sun Yuchen opened a channel to connect with the US President.

But when the WLFI token actually launched, the WLFI team kicked Sun Yuchen to the curb. On September 5, 2025, World Liberty Financial (WLFI) blacklisted addresses related to Sun Yuchen, involving approximately 540 million unlocked tokens and 2.4 billion locked tokens. The WLFI team's reason was straightforward: they suspected someone was selling off to suppress the token price. WLFI blacklisted 272 addresses in one go.

Although Nansen CEO Alex Svanevik later stated that Sun Yuchen had not engaged in dumping, and his transfers occurred after the WLFI token had already plummeted, the truth behind WLFI's drop might have been mass profit-taking by retail investors and further panic-driven price crashes. But because WLFI used the community as a shield, Sun Yuchen didn't step out to confront them head-on.

However, some still spoke up for Sun Yuchen. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju believed that even if Sun Yuchen sold his unlocked tokens, it was his right, as he had autonomy over his assets, and WLFI had no right to freeze user addresses. It's ironic—the Trump family has repeatedly stated in public that "de-banking" was a major reason they chose to join the crypto space, as their family assets had been frozen by the banking system multiple times. But how is their action of blacklisting user addresses any different from the banks that rejected them? This kind of "pseudo-decentralized" behavior deserves condemnation.

That said, although Sun Yuchen's situation is worthy of sympathy, if he chooses to go head-to-head with WLFI, he might not come out ahead. Because behind WLFI stands the Trump family and a group of top-tier elites with deep roots in both American politics and business. Which one can Sun Yuchen afford to offend?

Moreover, given Sun Yuchen's own regulatory history, political situation, and past controversies, if he really ends up in a US court against WLFI, winning the lawsuit might be out of the question; escaping unscathed might be something to be庆幸 (grateful) for.

So, for Sun Yuchen's "rights protection" campaign, he can make noise in the court of public opinion and posture alongside retail investors. But actually taking it all the way to a US courtroom? Better forget it.

The Second Lesson the Trump Family Taught the Crypto Circle

We have to admit that WLFI is the second lesson the Trump family taught the crypto circle (the first lesson was, of course, TRUMP). Its real purpose was never to break traditional banking restrictions or make DeFi better, but to疯狂敛财 (frantically amass wealth) in the grey areas of financial regulation.

Many people were unwilling to admit or ignored this before because the name Trump was still very valuable. In the bull market sentiment, power and influence were automatically translated into a sense of security and a moat. Coupled with Trump's extremely friendly attitude towards crypto during the campaign and early in his term, crypto users did not launch large-scale protests or FUD. The Trump family ate the meat in the crypto market, and we could跟着喝口汤 (follow along and have some soup).

But things are different now. In the broader context, with "Crypto Czar" David Sacks shifting his focus to AI, and Trump being deeply involved in the US-Iran conflict with no time to spare for the crypto industry, the光环 (halo) of the Trump name isn't worth as much anymore. When Trump is no longer our crypto president, what光环 (halo) does his family have left? (Related reading:"Crypto Czar" Steps Down: 130-Day Political Performance Ends, How Much of Trump's Crypto Promises Remain?)

At the same time, specifically regarding the WLFI project, influenced by the token's performance, governance controversies, freezing incidents, and other factors, this滤镜 (filter) has long been torn to shreds in the minds of users. The crypto circle is certainly not innocent; being willing to pay a premium for power and influence, to pay for political backgrounds, is itself a form of speculative collusion. But from now on, when facing "shoddy projects" like WLFI, crafted by American elites in the crypto field, we should have the courage to say no.

Трендові криптовалюти

CitreaCTR

wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT

Velodrome FinanceVELODROME

BrevisBREV

PancakeSwapCAKE

JUSTJST

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main controversy surrounding the World Liberty Financial (WLFI) project as described in the article?

AThe main controversy involves WLFI, a Trump family-affiliated crypto project, being accused of using the DeFi lending protocol Dolomite as a disguised channel for the team to sell tokens. WLFI allegedly collateralized around 5 billion WLFI tokens to borrow approximately $75 million in stablecoins, raising concerns about insider trading and liquidity risks for USD1.

QWhy did WLFI freeze addresses, including Justin Sun's, and what was the alleged real reason behind this action?

AWLFI officially froze 272 addresses, including Justin Sun's, claiming it was to protect user funds and prevent large holders from massive selling. However, the article suggests the real reason was to restrict selling by major holders, making it easier for the WLFI team themselves to sell their own tokens without competition.

QWhat was the nature of the initial relationship between Justin Sun and the WLFI project?

AInitially, Justin Sun, through TRON DAO, invested $30 million in WLFI, becoming its largest investor and a project advisor. This was widely seen as a political donation to gain favor with then-President-elect Donald Trump, creating a mutually beneficial relationship for both parties.

QWhat does the article suggest is the 'second lesson' the Trump family taught the crypto circle with WLFI?

AThe article suggests the 'second lesson' is that WLFI's true purpose was not to break traditional banking limitations or improve DeFi, but to amass wealth疯狂敛财 in the gray areas of financial regulation, exploiting the initial value of the 'Trump' name during the bull market.

QAccording to the article, what are the key reasons cited for the declining value and光环 (halo) of the Trump name in the crypto space?

AThe declining value is attributed to a shift in the macro environment: 'Crypto Czar' David Sacks focusing on AI, President Trump being preoccupied with the U.S.-Iran conflict and having less time for crypto, and the project's own issues like token performance, governance controversies, and the address freezing scandal, which collectively damaged its reputation.

Пов'язані матеріали

Upbit Rebalances 864B SHIB In Internal Wallet Move

South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Upbit moved a total of 864 billion SHIB (worth approximately $4 million) between its internal wallet addresses. The activity, involving transfers of 384 billion SHIB outbound and 480 billion SHIB inbound, occurred following a 36% SHIB price rally. On-chain data indicates this was a routine internal wallet rebalancing operation by the exchange, not a sell-off or liquidation event. The article cautions that while large on-chain transfers are highly visible, they require proper context and wallet labeling to interpret correctly. In this case, the movement between known Upbit addresses does not inherently signal a change in market supply or selling pressure for SHIB.

bitcoinist50 хв тому

Upbit Rebalances 864B SHIB In Internal Wallet Move

bitcoinist50 хв тому

Can Generative Models Finally Be Trained End-to-End? The Core Is a For Loop

This article introduces a novel training paradigm for generative models called Explorative Modeling (XM), which enables true end-to-end training. Traditionally, powerful generative models like autoregressive and diffusion models are not trained end-to-end. They are trained to predict a single small step but require iterative multi-step sampling for inference. This "exposure bias" leads to error accumulation and limits performance. The core challenge XM addresses is "mode blurring." In generative tasks, a single input (e.g., "generate a dog") corresponds to many valid outputs (multiple modes). Standard training objectives like reconstruction loss force the model to average these modes, producing unrealistic, blurry outputs. To avoid this, existing models break generation into many small, almost deterministic steps, sacrificing end-to-end training. XM tackles this by restructuring the training loop itself. Its key insight is to amplify "generative expressivity." For each training input, instead of generating one sample, the model generates K candidate outputs. Only the candidate closest to the real data is used for computing the loss and updating the model via backpropagation. This simple "best-of-K" mechanism is implemented as a short for-loop. By exploring multiple possibilities, the model learns to distribute its guesses across different modes rather than collapsing to their uninformative average. The paper demonstrates that "exploration" acts as a new, powerful scaling axis. Gains from XM increase with model size, data scale, and compute. Experiments show improvements in FID scores for image generation and significant efficiency gains, sometimes outperforming larger models without exploration. When pushed to the limit, XM enables fully single-step, end-to-end generative models. In robotics tasks, an "Explorative Policy" matched the performance of a 100-step Diffusion Policy with a single forward pass, drastically improving inference speed. While the best-of-K concept is not entirely new, the authors' contribution lies in formally understanding it as a direct method to boost generative expressivity without fragmenting the generation process. This work suggests that as models scale, enhancing exploration during training may become crucial for overcoming fundamental performance bottlenecks.

marsbit50 хв тому

Can Generative Models Finally Be Trained End-to-End? The Core Is a For Loop

marsbit50 хв тому

A Maximum of 20 Submissions Per Person? DeepMind Researcher Satirically 'Petitions' Against ICLR's New Rule

The International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) 2027 has introduced a new submission rule limiting authors to a maximum of 20 papers per conference. This policy, announced due to a 68% surge in submissions for ICLR 2026 that strained the review system, aims to ensure fair and informative peer review. Google DeepMind researcher Dan Roy responded with a sarcastic petition on X, calling the 20-paper cap "absurd" and claiming it would slow AI progress. His post mockingly argued that AI agents can now produce incremental research and that large language models (LLMs) already handle all reviewing, so output should be maximized. This satire critiques the broader trend of AI's role in academia, referencing a 2025 study that found about 21% of ICLR 2026 reviews were likely fully AI-generated. Roy's underlying point questions whether simply capping submissions addresses the systemic issue of AI potentially flooding conferences with agent-written papers and AI-assisted reviews. The debate highlights tensions between managing submission volume and maintaining research quality as AI tools become pervasive.

marsbit55 хв тому

A Maximum of 20 Submissions Per Person? DeepMind Researcher Satirically 'Petitions' Against ICLR's New Rule

marsbit55 хв тому

Coldcard Vulnerability Leads to $89 Million Theft, Sparking Largest On-Chain Migration Since FTX Collapse

A security vulnerability in Coldcard hardware wallets led to the theft of 1,367.05 BTC (approx. $89 million) from 4,585 addresses, according to Galaxy Research. The flaw, caused by insufficient randomness in seed phrase generation for specific firmware versions, triggered a massive migration of funds as users moved assets to new, secure wallets. This event caused the largest on-chain movement of small Bitcoin transactions since the FTX collapse, distorting key market indicators like active addresses and exchange deposits, and significantly dampening market sentiment. The incident also highlighted challenges in cybersecurity investigations, as researchers reported that safety guardrails on mainstream U.S. AI models hindered the analysis of attack patterns, forcing them to use an open-source Chinese AI model for forensic work. This underscores a dilemma in balancing AI security restrictions with the need for rapid response in tracing stolen crypto assets.

marsbit1 год тому

Coldcard Vulnerability Leads to $89 Million Theft, Sparking Largest On-Chain Migration Since FTX Collapse

marsbit1 год тому

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbit2 год тому

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School