What we can learn from the LIBRA case

What happened

On February 14, 2025, Argentine President Javier Milei posted on X in support of a new Solana token called LIBRA, presented as a project to fund small Argentine businesses. In the following minutes, the price rose rapidly and the market cap surpassed $4.5 billion within about an hour.

In the hours that followed, several wallets linked to the project began selling large quantities of tokens and withdrawing liquidity from the trading pool. The price crashed roughly 94% in under 11 hours. According to on-chain data shared by multiple blockchain analytics firms (including Lookonchain), around $107 million was withdrawn by a group of eight wallets linked to the project's team.

Milei later deleted the original post, stating he had never actively promoted the token and that anyone who invested had done so voluntarily. Hayden Davis, founder of Kelsier Ventures and an advisor involved in the project, publicly admitted in an interview to having withdrawn approximately $100 million from the token's liquidity pool.

The legal developments, as things stand

Argentine judicial authorities opened an investigation to determine whether Milei's public promotion influenced the token's price, and whether he or members of his team financially benefited. As of this writing, Milei has not been formally charged.

In April 2026, according to reporting by The New York Times based on phone records obtained by Argentine federal prosecutors, seven phone calls emerged between Milei and an intermediary linked to the project on the very night of the launch, along with a draft agreement outlining a $5 million payment tied to promotional support. These findings led Argentina's Chamber of Deputies to reopen its investigation.

We report these facts as publicly documented at the time of writing: the situation is still developing, and this page does not intend to pass judgment of guilt on anyone involved.

What a tool like CriptoCheck might have shown

Several analytics firms (including Bubblemaps) found that a very high share of LIBRA's supply was concentrated in a small number of wallets from launch -- exactly the kind of signal our "holder concentration" check is designed to flag before investing, not after.

The fact that several wallets involved in the sell-off received their tokens directly from the project's team, rather than through open-market purchases, is consistent with the kind of pattern our "common funder" and "identical amounts" checks are designed to surface.

We can't say with certainty exactly what a CriptoCheck check would have shown on LIBRA at the precise moment of launch, since the token appeared and crashed within a few hours -- but the structure of the event itself (high initial concentration, direct distribution to few wallets, coordinated selling) is precisely the kind of risk our technical indicators try to make visible in advance.

What we can learn

Even the endorsement of a extremely high-profile public figure never replaces an independent technical check -- a token's price can rise purely on collective trust, regardless of how solid its underlying structure actually is.

A brand-new token, launched only hours ago, with a price rising extremely fast, is exactly the moment when an independent check matters most -- not afterward, once the damage is already done.