Original author: @BlazingKevin_, Blockbooster researcher

On April 11, 2026, a series of lengthy tweets from Peter Girnus (@gothburz) on platform X drew widespread attention. The tweets revealed, from a first-person perspective, the interest structure, regulatory arbitrage paths, and potential market manipulation activities between World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and the Trump family in a systematic manner. Two days later, the same author recounted an experience as an ordinary investor, detailing an investment of $32,000 in emergency funds, only to have the tokens immediately locked.

When reading the above content, one background detail cannot be overlooked: Peter Girnus is a blogger known for his satirical writing, often using public financial documents as material to fabricate the identity of a core insider for a "self-explosive" literary narrative. He is not a real insider at WLFI, and the details he writes are a literary reorganization of publicly available information.

This identity statement does not diminish the reference value of the tweet content. The core data, document clauses, and timelines cited in the tweets can be independently verified through congressional reports, on-chain data, and mainstream media reports. We will strip these verified pieces of information from the literary narrative and conduct a structural analysis of WLFI's actual risks along six analytical lines.

1. Profit Distribution Mechanism: Unidirectional Extraction Model

The core controversy of WLFI lies not in technology, but in its revenue distribution structure.

According to the explicit stipulation on page 14 of WLFI's "Gold White Paper," 75% of the project's net income will flow to DT Marks DEFI LLC—a limited liability company registered in Delaware, directly linked to the Trump family. The remaining 25% is retained for project operations. This clause is presented in standard contractual language in the white paper, but its essence is: the largest beneficiary of the project has neither capital investment nor legal responsibility for the project itself.

The Democratic staff report released by the House Judiciary Committee on November 24, 2025, referred to the above structure as "unprecedented scale of presidential self-dealing." The report showed that the Trump family has received at least $890 million in revenue from WLFI-related businesses and holds WLF tokens worth approximately $3.8 billion, yet these interests correspond to no verifiable capital injection.

The token distribution also presents highly concentrated characteristics. According to public disclosures, as much as 80% of the token supply flowed to two internal entities, CIC Digital LLC and Fight Fight Fight LLC. External investors hold a low proportion of tokens and face lock-up restrictions, with liquidity nearly zero.

The team composition also confirms the closed nature of this structure: among the 12 core members listed on the WLFI website, 4 have the last name Trump, and 3 have the last name Witkoff. Co-founder Steven Witkoff also serves as the U.S. presidential envoy to the Middle East, with his two sons, Zach and Alex, responsible for crypto business operations and co-founding roles, respectively.

This "zero investment, high extraction, zero responsibility" structure is the core feature that distinguishes WLFI from ordinary crypto projects and is the main focus of congressional investigations.

2. Regulatory Arbitrage Paths: Pardons, Lawsuit Withdrawals, and Investment Timelines

The second controversy with WLFI is the temporal correlation between multiple pardons or regulatory actions and external investments. The following are independently verifiable events.

Sun Yuchen Case: Sun Yuchen invested $75 million in WLFI in 2024 while facing SEC allegations of fraud, wash trading, and undisclosed celebrity endorsements. In 2025, the SEC settled for $10 million and withdrew the case, and Sun Yuchen subsequently appeared on WLFI's advisory list.

However, this relationship reversed in September 2025. WLFI blacklisted Sun Yuchen's wallet, which held 595 million WLFI tokens (worth about $107 million), citing concerns about phishing attacks. In April 2026, Sun Yuchen publicly accused WLFI of treating users as "private ATMs" and claimed the blacklist feature was a "backdoor" embedded in the smart contract. This incident revealed WLFI's highly centralized control at the core contract level.

Changpeng Zhao and Binance Case: Changpeng Zhao received a presidential pardon after admitting to violating federal money laundering regulations. Shortly thereafter, the SEC withdrew its lawsuit against Binance. Binance then used WLFI's issued USD1 stablecoin to complete a $2 billion settlement transaction.

BitMEX Executive Case: Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed each received presidential pardons after admitting to violating the Bank Secrecy Act, with their company's $100 million fine simultaneously waived.

Each of the above three sets of events can be explained within legal and administrative procedures. However, their temporal intersections with WLFI's commercial interests warrant further scrutiny. For observers inclined to interpret them as "isolated events," congressional investigations have yet to reach a final conclusion; for analysts favoring a "structural correlation" interpretation, the existing timeline provides some support.

3. Foreign Capital Infiltration: Abu Dhabi Investment and Chip Export Approval

In early 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported that an investment entity with sovereign ties from Abu Dhabi purchased a 49% stake in WLFI for $500 million. This transaction included a $187 million advance payment to Trump family entities, with the agreement signed by Eric Trump on behalf of the family.

The national security concerns arise from policy changes before and after this investment. Shortly after the transaction was completed, the U.S. government overturned previous objections raised during a national security review and approved the export of advanced semiconductor products (including Nvidia AI chips) to the aforementioned Abu Dhabi-associated entity.

Senator Chris Murphy and others publicly questioned this action, believing it constituted a direct exchange of national security assets for family business benefits. The White House did not respond directly to this matter.

The analytical challenge of this event lies in information asymmetry: the transaction details have not been fully disclosed officially, and the internal considerations during the policy approval process remain opaque. However, structurally, the simultaneous occurrence of external capital, family profits, and federal policy adjustments within the same time window poses a substantial risk of conflict of interest.

4. Sanction Compliance Risk: AB DAO Partnership Incident

On October 14, 2025, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on the Prince Group in Cambodia, citing its alleged involvement in transnational criminal activities.

Twenty-nine days after the sanctions were implemented, on November 12, WLFI announced a partnership with AB DAO. Investigations revealed that AB DAO has ties to the Prince Group.

The project parties subsequently explained their lack of awareness regarding this connection. Following inquiries from reporters about this matter, the balance of stablecoins held by AB DAO on the WLFI platform dropped drastically from $10 million to $3.6 million, with about $6.4 million unaccounted for; the project parties did not provide any explanation for this.

Whether this incident arose from compliance negligence or subjective factors, the result is: a project applying for a U.S. banking license established a commercial partnership with an entity under sanctions within a month of those sanctions being imposed while lacking adequate public explanations thereafter. This is a significant red flag in terms of compliance evaluation.

5. Market Manipulation Suspicions: Policy Timing and Prediction Markets

Tariff Incident (April 9, 2025): The president posted on Truth Social that "now is a good time to buy," and hours later announced a suspension of tariffs for 90 days, causing the Nasdaq index to increase by approximately 12%. Reuters reported that before the official announcement, there were millions of dollars in unusual positions in the options market.

Iran Incident (March 23, 2026): After the president stated he would crack down on Iranian power plants, oil prices surged. The next morning at 6:49 AM, just 15 minutes before the president announced that "negotiations were going well, and the crackdown was delayed," the market saw $580 million in oil futures buy orders (approximately 6,200 contracts, nine times the daily average). Oil prices subsequently dropped, and the Dow Jones index rose by about 1,000 points in a single day, with the involved positions estimated to have profited between $40 million to $50 million.

Prediction Market Aspects: On Polymarket, traders had bet on unannounced military actions with a 93% success rate, earning nearly a million dollars; eight accounts accurately predicted the timing of the Iranian ceasefire. The Guardian described these accounts as showing "insider knowledge signs." Donald Trump Jr. simultaneously served as a member of the Polymarket advisory council and a paid strategic advisor for its competitor Kalshi, and the military decisions of his father, which were not publicly disclosed, happened to be the highest profit bet targets on both platforms.

On April 10, 2026, the White House sent an internal email to all staff, prohibiting the use of confidential information for trading. Concurrently, the SEC's chief enforcement officer resigned due to differences with the chair in pursuing cases related to the president's inner circle, and the relevant investigation subsequently stagnated.

The common characteristic of the above events is: there is a precise temporal matching between policy actions and market positions. No judicial body has yet released official investigation conclusions, but the data itself has drawn regulatory attention.

6. Dolomite Lending Incident: Direct Manifestation of Governance Risk

In April 2026, all previously mentioned macro-level controversies concentrated and erupted in market sentiment due to a specific on-chain operation.

According to reports from Gizmodo and CoinDesk, WLFI's treasury deposited 5 billion of its issued WLFI governance tokens into the associated DeFi lending platform Dolomite, using this as collateral to borrow about $75 million in stablecoins ($65.4 million USD1 and $10.3 million USDC).

This operation directly caused Dolomite's USD1 funding pool utilization rate to reach 100% at one point, rendering third-party depositors temporarily unable to withdraw funds. Notably, Dolomite's co-founder Corey Caplan also serves as WLFI's Chief Technology Officer, and to accommodate this deposit, the Dolomite platform specifically raised WLFI's supply cap to 5.1 billion tokens.

This structure raises two core issues:

First, using its own issued governance tokens, which lack secondary market liquidity, as collateral to borrow hard currency stablecoins, is an operation that shifts token price risks to the lending platform and its users. Once the collateral price drops and triggers liquidation, the illiquid WLFI tokens will face a risk of spiral collapse, potentially leaving large bad debts.

Second, there is a clear related-party relationship between the borrower and the lending platform, which was not adequately disclosed prior to the operation.

Under market pressure, the price of WLFI tokens briefly fell nearly 20%, hitting an all-time low. The project team then repaid $25 million of the USD1 loan, restoring the Dolomite platform's available liquidity to $35 million, and the deposit interest rate retreated from a crisis level of 34% to 10.43%.

Some repayments alleviated the immediate liquidity risk but did not answer the core questions: why was this loan taken out? Where did the funds go? The project team has yet to release a detailed official explanation. This lack of operational transparency is one of the main driving factors behind the current decline in market confidence.

7. Ordinary Investors' Situation

The above macro structure and on-chain operations ultimately pass through the token lock-up mechanism to affect ordinary investors.

Participating in WLFI token sales requires investors to have "accredited investor" status, meaning a net worth exceeding $1 million or an annual income exceeding $200,000. However, this qualification verification relies on self-declarations from investors and lacks substantive verification mechanisms. In other words, this threshold has some significance for regulatory compliance but holds almost no constraining power over actual access control.

Once tokens are purchased, they enter a lock-up period; currently, about 80% of external investors’ holdings remain illiquid, with no secondary market exit. The project team offers a "governance voting" mechanism as compensation, but on-chain data shows that 76% of the voting power is concentrated in the largest 10 wallets, rendering the voting power of ordinary holders nearly negligible.

In contrast, the project team concurrently used $65 million to repurchase tokens at an average price of $0.15 (about 10 times the early sale price), but these funds did not flow back to ordinary holders in any form.

8. Product Evolution: From Governance Tokens to Stablecoin

From a timeline perspective, WLFI's product layout achieved three phases within 17 months:

• October 2024: Issued governance tokens WLFI, completed $550 million in financing.
• January 2025: Launched Memecoin, causing approximately $3.87 billion in losses for investors, while the project team collected around $350 million in transaction fees.
• March 2026: Issued stablecoin USD1, subsequently used for settling a $2 billion transaction between Binance and Abu Dhabi sovereign funds within weeks.

In January 2026, WLFI applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for a national trust bank license to establish World Liberty Trust Company, with Zach Witkoff serving as president. If approved, this project will officially enter the U.S. core financial regulatory system from the crypto fringe.

Conclusion

Based on the above six analytical lines, WLFI's risk landscape can be categorized into two levels:

Structural Risk: The 75/25 profit distribution clause, 80% internal concentration of tokens, and multiple identity overlaps between family members and regulatory decision-makers constitute the institutional foundation for conflicts of interest. Problems at this level do not automatically dissolve with a market upturn or partial repayments.

Operational Risk: The Dolomite lending incident revealed the project’s lack of basic risk management awareness at the financial decision-making level, as well as a lack of transparent disclosures regarding related-party transactions. Coupled with the token's low liquidity, such operations pose potentially destructive threats to market stability.

Currently, congressional investigations are ongoing, and WLFI has yet to provide a full official explanation of the Dolomite lending incident, with crypto risk rating agencies issuing a "D" level warning.

The application for WLFI's banking license will transform it from a crypto project into a federally regulated financial institution. This means that stricter compliance reviews are forthcoming. At that time, each of the above concerns will face more formal legal and regulatory scrutiny.

About BlockBooster

BlockBooster is a next-generation alternative asset management company for the digital age. We use blockchain technology to invest, incubate, and manage core assets of the digital age—from blockchain-native projects to real-world assets (RWA). As value co-creators, we are dedicated to uncovering and unleashing the long-term potential of assets, capturing exceptional value for our partners and investors amidst the wave of the digital economy. Disclaimer: This article/blog is for reference only, represents the author's personal views, and does not represent BlockBooster's stance.

This article does not intend to provide:

(i) Investment advice or investment recommendations; (ii) Offers or solicitations for the purchase, sale, or holding of digital assets; or (iii) Financial, accounting, legal, or tax advice. Holding digital assets, including stablecoins and NFTs, carries a high risk, with significant price volatility, and could even become worthless. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you based on your financial situation. If you have specific questions, please consult your legal, tax, or investment advisor. The information provided in this article (including market data and statistics, if any) is for general reference only. Reasonable care was taken in preparing this data and these charts, but we accept no responsibility for any factual errors or omissions expressed therein.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。