Original author: @BlazingKevin_, Blockbooster researcher
On April 11, 2026, a series of long tweets from Peter Girnus (@gothburz) on platform X attracted widespread attention. The tweets, written from a first-person perspective, systematically revealed the interest structure, regulatory arbitrage paths, and potential market manipulation behaviors between World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and the Trump family. Two days later, the same author recounted the experience of investing $3,200 in emergency funds, only to have the tokens immediately locked.
When reading the above content, there is a background information that cannot be ignored: Peter Girnus is a blogger known for his satirical creations, whose common technique is to use public financial documents as material, fabricating the identity of a core insider to conduct "self-explosive" literary narratives. He is not a real insider of WLFI, and the details he writes are a literary reconstruction of public information.
This identity statement itself does not diminish the reference value of the tweet content. The core data, document terms, and timelines cited in the tweet can be independently verified in congressional reports, on-chain data, and mainstream media reports. We have stripped these verified pieces of information from literary narratives and conducted a structural analysis of WLFI's actual risks along six analytical leads.
1. Revenue distribution mechanism: One-way extraction model
The core controversy surrounding WLFI lies not in technology, but in its revenue distribution structure.
According to WLFI's (golden white paper) explicit stipulations on page 14, 75% of the project's net income will go to DT Marks DEFI LLC—a limited liability company registered in Delaware and directly associated with the Trump family. The remaining 25% will be retained for project operations. This clause is presented in standard contractual language in the white paper, but its essence is that the project's largest beneficiary has neither capital investment in the project itself nor bears any legal responsibility.
On November 24, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee Democrats released a staff report calling this structure an "unprecedented scale of presidential self-dealing." The report data shows that the Trump family has received at least $890 million in revenue from WLFI-related businesses and holds WLFI tokens worth approximately $3.8 billion, while these interests do not correspond to any verifiable capital injection.
Token distribution also shows a highly concentrated characteristic. 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. The proportion of tokens held by external investors is low, and there are lock-up restrictions, resulting in almost zero liquidity.
The team composition also confirms the closed nature of this structure: Among the 12 core members listed on WLFI's official website, 4 have the last name Trump and 3 have the last name Witkoff. Co-founder Steven Witkoff also serves as the U.S. President's Middle East envoy, while his two sons, Zach and Alex, are responsible for crypto business operations and co-founder positions, respectively.
This structure of "zero investment, high extraction, and zero responsibility" is the core feature that distinguishes WLFI from ordinary crypto projects and is the main focus of the congressional investigation.
Two, regulatory arbitrage paths: pardons, lawsuits withdrawn, and investment timelines
WLFI's second controversial clue is the temporal correlation between multiple pardons or regulatory actions and external investments. The following are all independently verifiable events.
Sun Yuchen case: In 2024, Sun Yuchen invested $75 million in WLFI while he was facing SEC charges for fraud, wash trading, and undisclosed celebrity endorsements. In 2025, the SEC settled for $10 million and withdrew the case, after which Sun Yuchen appeared on WLFI's advisory list.
However, this relationship reversed in September 2025. WLFI blacklisted the wallet of Sun Yuchen, which held 595 million WLFI tokens (worth about $107 million), citing the prevention of phishing attacks. In April 2026, Sun Yuchen publicly accused WLFI of treating users as "private ATMs" and claimed that the blacklisting function was a "backdoor" embedded in the smart contract. This incident highlighted WLFI's highly centralized control at the core contract level.
Zhao Changpeng and Binance case: Zhao Changpeng received a presidential pardon after admitting to violating federal money laundering regulations. Shortly thereafter, the SEC dropped its lawsuit against Binance. Binance subsequently adopted the USD1 stablecoin issued by WLFI to complete a $2 billion settlement transaction.
BitMEX executive case: Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed were all pardoned by the president after admitting to violating the Bank Secrecy Act, and their company-level $100 million fines were also waived.
Looking at the above three groups of events individually, they can all be explained within the scope of legal and administrative procedures. However, their temporal overlap with WLFI's commercial interests warrants further scrutiny. For observers inclined to interpret them as "isolated incidents," the congressional investigation has not reached a final conclusion; for analysts leaning towards a "structural correlation" interpretation, the existing timeline provides some support.
Three, foreign capital infiltration: Abu Dhabi investments and chip export approvals
In early 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that a sovereign-backed investor from Abu Dhabi acquired a 49% stake in WLFI for $500 million. This transaction included a $187 million advance payment to entities associated with the Trump family, with the agreement signed by Eric Trump on behalf of the family.
What has raised concerns at the national security level is the policy changes before and after this investment. Shortly after this transaction was completed, the U.S. government overturned previous objections raised based on national security reviews and approved the export of advanced semiconductor products (including Nvidia AI chips) to the aforementioned Abu Dhabi-affiliated entities.
Senator Chris Murphy and others publicly questioned this, believing it constituted a direct exchange of national security assets for family business interests. The White House has not responded directly to this.
The difficulty in analyzing this event lies in information asymmetry: the transaction details have not been fully disclosed by official sources, and the internal considerations during the policy approval process are equally opaque. However, structurally, external capital, family profits, and federal policy adjustments occurred synchronously within the same time window, at least constituting substantial risks of conflicts of interest.
4. Sanctions compliance risks: AB DAO collaboration incident
On October 14, 2025, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on the Prince Group in Cambodia, citing its involvement in transnational criminal activities.
29 days after the sanctions were implemented, on November 12, WLFI announced a partnership with AB DAO. Investigations revealed that AB DAO is associated with the Prince Group.
The project team then explained it as "unknowing." After journalists inquired about this matter, the balance of stablecoins held by AB DAO on the WLFI platform dropped sharply from $10 million to $3.6 million, with about $6.4 million unaccounted for, and the project team did not provide an explanation.
Regardless of whether this incident arose from compliance negligence or subjective factors, the result is: a project applying for a U.S. bank license established commercial cooperation with a sanctioned entity's affiliates one month after the U.S. government imposed sanctions, and subsequently lacked sufficient public explanations. This is a red flag that cannot be ignored in compliance assessments.
Five, market manipulation suspicions: policy timing and prediction markets
Tariff Event (April 9, 2025): The President posted on Truth Social, "Now is a good time to buy," and hours later announced a 90-day suspension of tariffs, causing the NASDAQ index to rise by about 12%. Reuters reported that before the official announcement, the options market saw millions of dollars in unusual positions.
Iran Incident (March 23, 2026): The President stated he would strike Iranian power plants, causing oil prices to rise. The next morning at 6:49 AM, just 15 minutes before the President announced "negotiations are progressing smoothly, strikes postponed," the market saw a $580 million oil futures buy order (about 6,200 contracts, nine times the daily average). Oil prices subsequently fell, and the Dow Jones index rose by about 1,000 points in a single day, with the involved positions estimated to have made a profit of $40 million to $50 million.
In terms of prediction markets: On Polymarket, traders bet on a 93% success rate for unannounced military actions, earning nearly a million dollars; another eight accounts accurately predicted the timing of the Iranian ceasefire. The Guardian described these accounts as having "indications of insider knowledge." Donald Trump Jr. simultaneously serves as a member of the advisory board for Polymarket and as a paid strategic advisor for its competitor Kalshi, while his father's undisclosed military decisions happen to be the highest-yielding betting targets on these two platforms.
On April 10, 2026, the White House sent an internal email to all employees, warning against using confidential information for trading. During the same period, the SEC's chief enforcement officer resigned due to disagreements with the chair regarding the investigation into the President's inner circle, causing the relevant investigation to stall.
The common feature of the aforementioned events is: there is a precise timing match between policy actions and market positions. No judicial institution has yet published formal investigation conclusions, but the data itself has already attracted regulatory attention.
Six, Dolomite lending incident: A direct manifestation of governance risk
In April 2026, all the aforementioned macro-level controversies erupted in the market sentiment due to a specific on-chain operation.
According to reports from Gizmodo and CoinDesk, WLFI's treasury deposited 5 billion of its own issued WLFI governance tokens into the affiliated DeFi lending platform Dolomite as collateral, borrowing approximately 75 million USD stablecoins (65.4 million USD1 and 10.3 million USDC).
This operation directly caused Dolomite's USD1 funding pool utilization to reach 100% at one point, temporarily preventing third-party depositors from withdrawing. Notably, Dolomite co-founder Corey Caplan also serves as WLFI's Chief Technology Officer, and the Dolomite platform specifically raised the WLFI supply cap to 5.1 billion to accommodate this deposit.
This structure has two core issues:
First, using self-issued governance tokens lacking secondary market liquidity as collateral to borrow hard currency stablecoins is an operation that shifts token price risk onto the lending platform and its users. Once the collateral's price declines and triggers liquidation, the illiquid WLFI tokens will face a spiral collapse risk, 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 before the operation occurred.
Under market pressure, WLFI token prices once fell nearly 20%, hitting an all-time low. The project team subsequently repaid $25 million of the USD1 loan, restoring Dolomite's available liquidity to $35 million and bringing deposit rates down from 34% during the crisis to 10.43%.
Partial repayments alleviated the immediate liquidity risk, but did not answer the core question: why was this loan taken? Where did the funds flow? The project team has yet to release a detailed official explanation. This lack of transparency at the operational level is one of the main drivers of the current decline in market confidence.
Seven, the plight of ordinary investors
The aforementioned macro structure and on-chain operations ultimately transmit to ordinary investors through the token lock-up mechanism.
Participation in WLFI token sales requires investors to meet the qualification of "accredited investor," that is, a net worth of over $1 million or an annual income exceeding $200,000. However, this qualification verification relies on the self-declaration of investors and lacks substantive verification mechanisms. In other words, this threshold has some significance for regulatory compliance but imposes almost no constraints on actual access control.
Once the tokens are purchased, they enter a lock-up period, with approximately 80% of external investors' holdings still unable to circulate, and there is no secondary market exit. The project team offered a "governance voting" mechanism as compensation, but on-chain data shows that 76% of voting rights are concentrated in the largest 10 wallets, making the voting weight of ordinary holders almost negligible.
In contrast, the project team used $65 million around the same time 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.
Eight, product evolution: from governance tokens to stable currencies
From a timeline perspective, WLFI's product layout completed three phases of transition within 17 months:
October 2024: Issued governance token WLFI, completing $550 million in financing.
In January 2025: Launched Memecoin, which caused investors an estimated loss of about $3.87 billion, while the project team collected approximately $350 million in transaction fees.
In March 2026: Issued stablecoin USD1 and used it 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 charter, intending to establish World Liberty Trust Company, with Zach Witkoff as president. If approved, this project will officially enter the core U.S. financial regulatory system from the crypto fringes.
Summary
Based on the aforementioned six analytical leads, WLFI's risk map can be divided into two levels:
Structural risks: the 75/25 revenue distribution clause, 80% internal concentration of tokens, and multiple identity overlaps between families and regulatory decision-makers constitute the institutional basis for conflicts of interest. Issues at this level do not automatically dissipate with market improvements 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, and related party transactions lack transparent disclosure. Combined with the low liquidity of the tokens, such operations pose potential destructive effects on market stability.
Currently, the congressional investigation is still ongoing, and WLFI has not provided a complete official explanation regarding the Dolomite lending incident. Crypto risk rating agencies have issued a "D" grade warning for it.
WLFI's bank license application will transform it from a crypto project into a federally regulated financial institution. This means stricter compliance reviews are imminent. At that time, each of the aforementioned doubts will face more formal legal and regulatory scrutiny.
About BlockBooster
BlockBooster is a next-generation alternative asset management company for the digital age. We utilize blockchain technology to invest, incubate, and manage core assets of the digital era—from blockchain-native projects to real-world assets (RWA). As value co-creators, we are committed to uncovering and unleashing the long-term potential of assets, capturing exceptional value for our partners and investors amid the waves of the digital economy. Disclaimer: This article/blog is for reference only, represents the author's personal views, and does not represent the position of BlockBooster.
This article does not intend to provide:
(i) Investment advice or recommendations; (ii) offers or solicitations to buy, sell, or hold digital assets; or (iii) financial, accounting, legal, or tax advice. Holding digital assets, including stablecoins and NFTs, carries high risks, with significant price volatility, and may 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 compiling this data and these charts, but no responsibility is accepted for any factual errors or omissions expressed herein.