usd1

​The "Trump Trade" is back in full force, and this time it’s not just a meme—it’s a stablecoin revolution. While the broader market faces volatility, World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and its native stablecoin USD1 are making waves that even the biggest whales can’t ignore.
​📈 The "USD1" Phenomenon
​The growth of the USD1 stablecoin has been nothing short of explosive. Recent reports show its supply has surged to over $5.4 billion, with Binance reportedly holding a significant portion of the liquidity.
​The Utility: USD1 isn’t just another dollar-peg; it’s becoming the settlement layer for new tokenized Real-World Assets (RWAs) like oil, gas, and timber.
​The $1 Anchor: As USD1 cements its place as a Top 10 stablecoin, the ecosystem's governance token, WLFI, is feeling the heat.
​🔥 Why WLFI is Trending Right Now
​WLFI recently saw a 10% price jump and a 100% increase in trading volume. Why?
​Whale Accumulation: On-chain data shows new wallets funding with millions in USDC just to sweep up WLFI.
​Mar-a-Lago Hype: The World Liberty Forum is set for February 18, 2026. With heavy hitters from Goldman Sachs and the CFTC rumored to attend, the market is bracing for a massive partnership announcement.
​The $1 Dream: While WLFI currently trades around $0.11, analysts are debating if the upcoming "banking charter" move could propel it toward the $0.25–$0.40 range by mid-2026.
​⚠️ What to Watch Out For
​Despite the bullish momentum, nearly 80% of WLFI tokens remain locked for early investors. The upcoming community vote on token unlocks will be the "make or break" moment for price stability.
​Pro Tip: Keep a close eye on the USD1 liquidity pools. If the stablecoin adoption continues to outpace the market, WLFI’s governance value could skyrocket.
​What do you think? Is WLFI headed for $1, or is the unlock risk too high? Let’s discuss in the comments! 👇
​#WLFI #USD1 #Binance #CryptoNews #bullish

USD1, also known as World Liberty Financial USD, is a stablecoin pegged to the US dollar.
Some latest updates :-
$USD1 is trading at $1.00, with a market cap of $5.38 billion.@CZ @BNB Chain
The price has remained stable, with no significant changes in the last 24 hours.
#USD1 is listed on Binance, a popular cryptocurrency exchange .
For more information on USD1's market performance or to explore other stablecoins, you might want to check out CoinGecko or Finnhub.

#BinanceSquareFamily
#Write2Earn
#BinanceUSD1ArlaVee369x24

Sam Bankman-Fried filed a motion for a new trial on Feb. 10, advancing a claim that reframes FTX's collapse not as fraud-driven insolvency but as a recoverable liquidity crisis.
The motion invokes Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits courts to grant new trials when “the interest of justice so requires,” typically when newly discovered evidence surfaces or fundamental trial errors taint the verdict.
SBF's filing argues both that testimony from silenced witnesses would have refuted the government's insolvency narrative and that prosecutorial intimidation denied him due process.
At the motion's center sits a striking numerical claim: FTX held a positive net asset value of $16.5 billion as of the November 2022 bankruptcy petition date.
The implication is that if the estate can eventually repay customers, the trial's portrayal of billions in stolen, irrecoverable funds was misleading. According to Reuters, the bankruptcy plan contemplates distributing at least 118% of customers' November 2022 account values.
However, this accounting argument collides with a deeper question: Does repayment erase fraud?
The answer illuminates why “solvency” in crypto exchanges operates across dimensions that balance sheets alone cannot capture, and why FTX has become a case study in how narratives are constructed when courtroom facts and financial reality diverge.
Whole in dollars, not in kind
Bankruptcy law fixes claims at a snapshot. Under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b), the value of creditor claims is determined as of the petition date. In this case, Nov. 11, 2022.
For FTX customers, that means their entitlements were calculated using crypto prices from the depths of the 2022 market collapse, not the subsequent rally that saw Bitcoin climb from under $17,000 to a peak of $126,000.
Court filings in the Bahamas proceedings make this explicit: claims for appreciation after the petition date are not part of the core customer entitlement. When the estate announced distributions exceeding 100%, that percentage reflects petition-date dollar values, not the in-kind restoration of the specific tokens customers believed they held.
A customer who deposited one Bitcoin in 2021 does not receive one Bitcoin back. Instead, they receive the November 2022 dollar-equivalent value of the Bitcoin, plus a premium reflecting asset recoveries.
Customers objected precisely because the petition-date valuation mechanism excluded them from the crypto market's subsequent appreciation. Being paid “in full” under the bankruptcy doctrine can still mean being underpaid relative to the asset you thought you owned.
The legal framework treats crypto balances as dollar-denominated claims, even when users experience them as specific-asset holdings with 24/7 withdrawal rights
Chart shows Bitcoin price rising from $16,000 at FTX's November 2022 bankruptcy petition date to over $100,000, illustrating gap between dollar-based claims and in-kind asset appreciation.

Three layers of solvency (and why NAV isn't enough)
FTX's motion treats solvency as a single accounting question: do assets exceed liabilities at a point in time?
However, crypto exchanges face a more complex solvency architecture that operates across three dimensions.
Accounting solvency, defined by net asset value, is the balance sheet view that the motion emphasizes. Even if the $16.5 billion figure is accurate, it depends entirely on valuation choices: which assets counted, at what haircuts, and how liabilities were defined.
The estate's recoveries benefited from venture capital stakes in companies like Anthropic that weren't immediately liquid in November 2022 but later returned substantial value.
Liquidity solvency concerns whether crypto exchanges are structurally sound. Liabilities are on-demand, typically denominated in specific tokens, and confidence-sensitive.
Academic work analyzing the 2022 “crypto winter” explicitly frames the period as a run-driven crisis. When FTX faced its liquidity crisis in November 2022, it processed roughly $5 billion in withdrawal requests over two days.
The question wasn't whether the venture portfolio would eventually be worth something, but whether liquid, on-chain assets matched on-demand liabilities in real time.
Governance solvency is where fraud enters, irrespective of recovery.
Did the exchange represent that customer assets were segregated? Were conflicts of interest controlled? These questions persist even if the estate later recovers enough to pay claims.
The IOSCO final recommendations on crypto-asset regulation treat conflicts of interest and custody/client-asset protection as central failure modes, distinct from simple insolvency.

Diagram illustrates three dimensions of crypto exchange solvency: accounting balance sheets, liquidity for withdrawal demands, and governance controls for client protection.
Why repayment doesn't dissolve fraud
Trial testimony established that Alameda Research, Bankman-Fried's trading firm, ran what prosecutors described as a multi-billion-dollar deficit in its FTX user account, using customer deposits as collateral and operating capital.
The government's case rested on misrepresentation, comprising customers being told that assets were segregated, misuse of funds, with funds commingled and lent to Alameda, and governance failure characterized by risk controls being bypassed or nonexistent.
The motion argues that if customers can be repaid, the “billions in losses” narrative was false. But fraud law and bankruptcy law ask different questions.
Fraud focuses on what was represented at the time and what was done with customer property. Bankruptcy focuses on what creditors ultimately recover.
Even under the motion's own framing, the Debtors' estate initially claimed both FTX and FTX US were insolvent on Nov. 11, 2022, then revised that view only after extensive asset recovery work.
Solvency assessments depend on assumptions, and those assumptions change as illiquid assets get valued, disputes get resolved, and market conditions shift.
@Jiayi Li #WhenWillBTCRebound #BinanceBitcoinSAFUFund #WhaleDeRiskETH #BinanceBitcoinSAFUFund #GoldSilverRally $BNB $XRP

Binance has recently drawn significant attention across the crypto community following a report highlighting its dominant share of USD1, a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial (WLFI).
According to a February 9 report by Forbes, Binance and its users currently hold approximately 87% of USD1’s circulating supply, equivalent to around $4.7 billion out of $5.4 billion. On-chain analytics platform Arkham Intelligence reportedly confirmed similar distribution data.
The findings have sparked discussions regarding stablecoin concentration risks, exchange influence, and the broader intersection between crypto markets and political affiliations.
Concentration Debate: Market Structure or Systemic Risk?
The reported level of USD1 concentration on a single exchange has raised questions within the industry. Some observers argue that such high concentration could introduce structural vulnerabilities, including liquidity dependence on one platform or market imbalance during stress events.
Stablecoins are often associated with decentralization narratives, particularly in relation to transparency, distribution, and risk mitigation. When a large portion of supply is concentrated on a single centralized exchange, critics suggest it may challenge those narratives.
However, others point out that high exchange concentration is not uncommon in the crypto ecosystem, particularly for newly launched tokens or assets supported by major liquidity campaigns.
CZ Pushes Back Against “Overstated” Concerns
Changpeng Zhao (CZ), founder and former CEO of Binance, responded publicly to the centralization concerns, describing them as exaggerated.
In posts shared on X (formerly Twitter), CZ emphasized that Binance has historically held a significant share of various stablecoins due to its scale as one of the largest global exchanges. He noted that across many digital assets, Binance often accounts for 60–70% of exchange-held supply, reflecting user activity rather than proprietary ownership.
Supporters of this perspective argue that the majority of USD1 held on Binance belongs to users, not the exchange itself. From this viewpoint, exchange concentration does not necessarily equate to centralized control over the asset.
Political Links Add Complexity to the Discussion
The situation has attracted additional attention due to WLFI’s reported connections to U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his family.
World Liberty Financial, founded in 2024, lists Donald Trump as an honorary co-founder, alongside Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Barron Trump. Reports indicate that entities associated with the Trump family hold a notable stake in the company. Public financial disclosures also suggest that President Trump has generated substantial income linked to the project.
While political associations do not directly impact the technical structure of USD1, they have contributed to heightened scrutiny and public debate surrounding governance, transparency, and market influence.
Role of Exchange Promotions
Analysts have also examined Binance’s promotional campaigns related to USD1 and WLFI tokens. In late January, the exchange reportedly launched incentive programs, trading pair expansions, and reward initiatives tied to USD1 holdings.
Such campaigns can significantly increase liquidity and concentration on a specific platform, particularly during early growth phases of a stablecoin. Some market observers suggest that exchange-driven incentives may influence distribution patterns more rapidly than organic market adoption.
However, promotional programs are common industry practices designed to bootstrap liquidity and improve trading depth.
Assessing the Broader Risk Landscape
Independent crypto researcher Molly White noted that while the concentration level is notable, it is not entirely surprising given Binance’s role in supporting USD1’s market growth.
From a systemic perspective, experts generally distinguish between:
Custodial concentration (user assets held on one exchange), and
Issuer-level centralization (control over minting, reserves, and governance).
At present, there is no indication of immediate instability. Nonetheless, discussions around exchange concentration highlight the importance of transparency, reserve backing, and diversified liquidity across platforms.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding Binance and USD1 reflects broader themes within crypto markets: liquidity concentration, exchange influence, and the evolving relationship between digital assets and global politics.
While CZ maintains that concerns are overstated and reflective of Binance’s scale, the situation underscores ongoing conversations about decentralization, market structure, and stablecoin governance.
As the stablecoin sector continues to expand, distribution patterns and transparency standards will likely remain key points of focus for both regulators and market participants.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research before making any financial decisions.
Follow for more updates on stablecoins, exchange trends, and global crypto developments.
#Binance #CZ #Stablecoins #USD1