Below will be the full text of his post; I assume it will later be deleted or edited.

On the one hand, Justin began talking about the correctness, citing arguments and examples of wrongdoing by WorldLibertyFinance, and for that you need balls!

On the other hand, such a forced sudden move makes you wonder: is the founder of TRON ready to stand up to the Trump family?

Today my attorney appeared in federal court in California to challenge World Liberty Financial’s efforts to force our dispute into secret arbitration proceedings and to seal documents from public view.

We forcefully argued that this case should be heard in open court—and the court agreed with us.

In a major victory, the judge ruled that all of my individual claims would remain in open court.

The judge also rejected World Liberty’s argument that all company-related claims should be sent to arbitration, and ordered the parties to meet and discuss which of these claims should remain in court and which should go to arbitration.

This is a significant win.

World Liberty tried to move this case behind closed doors, but the court said “no.”

Token holders deserve to see how projects treat the people who trust them. I believe World Liberty wouldn’t fight so aggressively to hide its actions if those actions were justified—and I won’t stop until the community gets the transparency it deserves.

For those of you who are new to this dispute: I was among the earliest and largest investors in World Liberty. I invested $45 million in World Liberty in exchange for $WLFI tokens because I believed the project’s claims that it would bring decentralized finance to the masses.

But, as alleged in my complaint against World Liberty, after my $45 million helped turn their failed token sale into a $550 million haul, World Liberty secretly built a backdoor into the $WLFI smart contract, giving it unilateral power to freeze, limit, and burn any holder’s tokens without notice or due process.

The complaint also alleges that World Liberty used that power against me to unlawfully seize my property (namely, my $WLFI tokens), and then threatened me with criminal prosecution when I attempted to exercise my lawful rights. My lawsuit seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as compensation.

After this lawsuit began, I quickly obtained a court order prohibiting World Liberty from burning, destroying, redistributing, or otherwise permanently disposing of any of my tokens.

This injunction was necessary because, as I allege in my complaint, World Liberty threatened to destroy my tokens and also ensured it had unilateral power to carry out that threat.

Now I understand that World Liberty built the same backdoor capabilities into its USD1 stablecoin. In my view, USD1 users should understand that World Liberty gave itself the technical ability to freeze or destroy their assets at any time—and that, as I allege in my complaint, they have already demonstrated a willingness to use those features against $WLFI holders.

I am not the only victim of the World Liberty fraud scheme described in my complaint. While I’m not the one to share other people’s stories without their permission, others have reached out to me privately to say that they also believe they are victims of World Liberty—but are worried about speaking out publicly and filing a lawsuit.

I understand their concerns.

As alleged in my complaint, World Liberty has shown that it will retaliate against those who challenge it.

I also want to caution investors based on my own experience with bad actors in this industry. Before this dispute, ARIA scammed me, fleeing with approximately $500 million in collateral backing the TUSD stablecoin.

While ARIA was insolvent and sitting on hundreds of millions in stolen funds, its agent Vincent Chok was simultaneously launching a new stablecoin called FDUSD through his company First Digital Trust.

That stablecoin ultimately collapsed in trust, lost its peg, and saw its trading pairs removed from the Binance exchange.

This experience taught me to look more closely at the projects I invest in, and it is one of the reasons I now have serious concerns about World Liberty.

In my view, there are serious reasons to be cautious regarding both $WLFI and USD1.

My claim against World Liberty is for hundreds of millions of dollars, and I have seen no evidence suggesting they have the resources to satisfy such a judgment.

USD1’s market capitalization is reportedly $4 billion, but that is users’ money.

This is collateral meant to back stablecoins, and it cannot be used to pay a court judgment.

Aside from this collateral, I have seen no indication that World Liberty has enough capital to satisfy a hundreds-of-millions-dollar judgment.

And that’s just my claim. As noted, I understand that others may bring similar lawsuits.

Beyond these potential claims, World Liberty’s conduct gives me even more reason to doubt whether they will be able to meet their obligations.

According to public reports, World Liberty posted about five billion of its own tokens $WLFI as collateral on Dolomite, a lending platform co-founded by the chief technical officer of World Liberty itself. Reportedly, this amounts to nearly half of its treasury and about 5% of the total token supply.

Through this scheme, World Liberty reportedly borrowed at least $75 million in stablecoins, including its own USD1. As noted in my complaint, industry analysts have drawn direct comparisons between this cyclical borrowing and the type of leverage that led to the collapse of the massive SBF fraud in FTX.

There is also the question of World Liberty’s leadership. As I allege in my complaint, World Liberty co-founder Chase Herro previously founded another DeFi protocol called Dough Finance, which claimed it became the victim of a hack in which user assets were stolen.

But an investor filed a lawsuit claiming that no hack actually occurred and that Herro personally liquidated the platform’s assets into his own wallet.

According to public reports, the overwhelming majority of these funds still appear to be missing. As documented in public reports, many of the same individuals who were involved in Dough Finance now run World Liberty.

All of these things—my enormous damages claim, the claims of others who have not yet filed suit, the borrowing on Dolomite, and the Dough Finance litigation—raise serious questions in my mind about whether World Liberty and USD1 have enough money to satisfy a judgment, pay off debts, or reimburse investors in the event of a panic withdrawal.

I believe investors should ask whether World Liberty and USD1 have enough resources to satisfy all of their potential obligations.

Based on the publicly available information I reviewed, I’m not sure they have it.

I urge investors to do their own due diligence and to proceed with extreme caution.