$LIBRA Token is a story of Crypto gatekeeping mafia colluding to frame Milei.
Yana Afanasieva
Scaling compliance for FinTech & Crypto startups 🚀 Licensing (MICA, EMI), outsourced compliance/MLRO function 🎯 Founder of FinTech Compliance Pro Certification ⛑ Worked for Lirium, Aza, PayPal, bitFlyer, Amazon 🔥
The $LIBRA token project is now being used to disparage the crypto industry and potentially even impeach president Javier Milei of Argentina.
Let me get it straight.
Let me explain how I see it.
The crypto industry—particularly the wild arena of new token launches—has fallen under the grip of gatekeepers who operate like a racketeering mafia, colluding to squeeze profits from the chaos. These shadowy players—think market makers, insider cliques, community managers and platform operators—wield their influence to extort poorly informed newcomers. They dangle the promise of access and success, only to rig the game for themselves.
This isn’t a bug in crypto’s code—it’s a feature of power players being unchecked. Yet, this hustle isn’t new. From the Swiss private banking introducers to the Wall Street power brokers and underwriters who’ve gatekept IPOs since the ticker tape’s first clatter, the financial world has always bred these gatekeepers.
In the context of the $LIBRA scandal these market makers positioned themselves as necessary middlemen to exploit the public, but also (this is what it looks like) to frame and impeach Milei.
Here is a long story of what happened
It started with a single X post. At 7:01 p.m. Argentina time on Valentine’s Day, Milei touted $LIBRA as a Solana-based lifeline for entrepreneurs, tying it to his “Viva la Libertad” slogan. The token, created just 30 minutes earlier, rocketed from pennies to $5, hitting a $4.5 billion market cap in hours. The hype was electric—here was a head of state embracing crypto to save an economy battered by inflation. Investors, from retail traders to Barstool’s Dave Portnoy, piled in.
Blockchain data from Bubblemaps revealed 82% of $LIBRA’s supply sat in a single cluster of wallets—unlocked and ready to sell. No whitepaper, no tokenomics, just a slick website (vivalalibertadproject.com) launched that day.
By late February 14, the unraveling began. Eight wallets linked to the $LIBRA team cashed out $107 million—$57.6 million in USDC and 249,671 SOL ($49.7 million)—via Meteora’s one-sided liquidity pools, per Lookonchain. The price cratered 70% in an hour, from $4.74 to $1.44, then kept falling. Within five hours, billions evaporated. Retail buyers were left holding a token worth cents, while early snipers—like one who turned $0.216 into $6.5 million in 37 minutes—laughed to the bank.
Milei deleted his post, claiming ignorance. Argentina’s fintech chamber cried scam. Opposition lawmakers demanded his impeachment. And the finger-pointing ignited.
The main gatekeepers and insiders associated with the project were:
A Panama-registered company identified as the developer of the $LIBRA token, per the project’s website footer ("Private Initiative project Developed by KIP Network Inc © 2025"). KIP Network is a Web3 firm focused on AI and payment infrastructure. Julian Peh, the Singaporean CEO of KIP Network, met with Argentine President Javier Milei on October 19, 2024, at the Libertador Hotel in Buenos Aires. KIP Protocol claims this was a general discussion about their work in Argentina (e.g., joining the Buenos Aires blockchain committee), with no mention of $LIBRA or token launches. However, their name on the project site suggests deeper involvement.
KIP Protocol has since distanced itself, denying they created the token or acted as market makers, claiming they were only hired as a tech consultancy to distribute funds to local businesses. They say they were informed of the project by Tech Forum Argentina organizer Mauricio Novelli around February 13, 2025, just before the launch (the date cannot be true, if they were the technical service provider, and the token launched the next day).
Hayden Mark Davis, CEO of Kelsier Ventures, is widely regarded as the central figure in the $LIBRA launch. Kelsier Ventures, a crypto investment firm, is said to have handled the token’s creation and market-making, per multiple reports and Davis’s own statements.
Davis has admitted to being a key player in an interview with Coffeezilla on February 17, 2025, claiming he’s the "custodian" of over $100 million in funds from the launch (including liquidity pool removals and fees). He insists it’s not a "random scam" but a "plan gone miserably wrong," citing $60 million still locked in a bonding curve.
Davis also has ties to other recent memecoins, like $MELANIA, with on-chain evidence from Bubblemaps showing shared wallet patterns between $LIBRA and $MELANIA issuers.
Meteora
The $LIBRA team used Meteora’s one-sided liquidity pools to manage liquidity, allowing insiders to extract funds (USDC and SOL) without direct market sales, per on-chain data from Bubblemaps and Ember CN.
Jupiter Exchange
This DEX was clearly aware of the project two weeks prior, per a February 17 statement, but found no evidence of insider trading by its team. They confirmed that Davis/Kelsier Ventures informed them, raising questions about broader collusion in memecoin circles.
Javier Milei
Javier Milei endorsed $LIBRA via an X post on February 14, 2025, at 7:01 p.m. Argentina time, linking to the Solana contract address and framing it as an economic boost. This triggered the token’s surge from near zero to $5, peaking at a $4.5 billion market cap. It should be clear that Milei never stated that this was an official government project, he only stated that he was hoping that this initiative would be good for the country.
There is no doubt in my mind that this statement was not appropriate and he did not realize the consequences of this statement (more on this later). His post was poor judgement, but I have not found any evidence suggesting his was personally motivated.
When Elon endorses DOGE or Trump issues his NFTs or coins, their message reaches a very sophisticated audience who are more experienced with crypto. Crypto pros in the US do not take Trump’s and Elon’s statements too seriously. Milei was talking to a much more naive and less informed audience.
Milei deleted his X post a few hours later, claiming ignorance of the project’s details and denying personal gain. He’s since ordered an Anti-Corruption Office investigation into himself and his government, announced on February 16th. His critics allege he was complicit, though no hard evidence supports this yet.
Gatekeepers Mafia Plot
There’s substantial on-chain and circumstantial evidence suggesting manipulation by market makers and insiders, though deliberate scam remains debated.
Blockchain analysis from Bubblemaps and The Kobeissi Letter shows 82% of $LIBRA’s supply was held in a single cluster of connected wallets at launch, unlocked and sellable from the start. This contrasts with typical memecoin developer holdings of 15-20%, per industry norms.
No tokenomics were publicly shared, and the website offered minimal transparency, created hours before Milei’s post.
Lookonchain data shows eight wallets linked to the $LIBRA team extracted $107 million total: $57.6 million in USDC and 249,671 SOL ($49.7 million) via adding/removing liquidity and claiming fees. This began within three hours of launch, crashing the price from $4.74 to $1.44 (70% drop) in an hour, per DexScreener.
Bubblemaps reports $87.4 million was pulled via Meteora pools in the first three hours, aligning with the 90%+ crash from $5 to cents.
The token was created 30 minutes before Milei’s post and the first buyer purchased at $0.216 the instant it went live, selling 37 minutes later for $6.5 million profit.
This suggests pre-awareness, insider tips and deployment of bots.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Jupiter DEX admission of knowing about the project two weeks prior (via Kelsier Ventures) indicates it was an "open secret" in memecoin circles, though they deny involvement in trading.
Davis admitted in his Coffeezilla interview to refunding Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy $5 million after Portnoy lost big on $LIBRA, claiming Portnoy "knew about the launch" and had time to invest. The refund came from an Avalanche address tied to a $LIBRA sniper wallet, fueling speculation of favoritism or insider deals.
Posts on X suggest various large personalities and Solana influencers were aware and contributed to the liquidity pool as key opinion leaders, though no specific names or transactions are confirmed beyond Portnoy.
Kelsier Ventures, led by Davis, acted as the primary market maker, per their own statements and KIP Protocol’s claim that Kelsier handled the launch entirely. Davis admitted to "sniping" the token (buying early to control supply) in the Coffeezilla interview, defending it as a counter to other snipers, though he denied technical know-how himself.
The use of Meteora’s pools allowed subtle liquidity removal rather than overt dumps, masking the sell-off’s impact initially, per on-chain analysts.
The on-chain data (wallet clusters, rapid profits, liquidity pulls) strongly suggests planned manipulation, with insiders knowing that Milei’s “endorsement” was coming and planning to exploit his endorsement for a pump-and-dump. The timing and concentration of supply point to premeditation, in my humble opinion.
It gets better.
Milei met with KIP Protocol’s CEO Julian Peh on October 19, 2024, at a Tech Forum event in Buenos Aires, where KIP claims they discussed their work in Argentina but not a token launch.
The Argentine government also confirmed that a second meeting occurred, where KIP pitched the "Viva la Libertad" project as a blockchain-based financing initiative for small businesses.
This aligns with Milei’s libertarian ideals, suggesting he may have been sold a vision without specifics.
Hayden Davis of Kelsier Ventures met Milei on January 30, 2025, at Casa Rosada. The government claims Davis had no official role, yet Davis later called himself Milei’s "adviser" in a February 16 video, hinting he pitched broader "tokenization" ideas. This discrepancy raises questions: Did Davis and KIP oversell the project’s legitimacy to gain Milei’s trust, omitting the memecoin’s speculative nature?
Milei’s X post on February 14, 2025, came just 30 minutes after $LIBRA’s launch, suggesting he was primed to promote it without verifying details. He deleted it hours later, claiming ignorance of the project’s specifics, which supports the idea he was fed a surface-level pitch. Posts on X and analyses (e.g., from Cointelegraph) note there’s no evidence he investigated the tokenomics—82% of supply in one wallet cluster, per Bubblemaps—before endorsing it. This naivety could indicate Kelsier and KIP exploited Miley’s enthusiasm and impressionable nature without disclosing risks.
A CoinDesk report on February 18 cites text messages from December 2024 where Davis boasted he could "control" Milei by sending money to Milei’s sister, Karina, saying, "I send $$ to his sister and he signs whatever I say and does what I want." If true, this suggests Davis may have manipulated Milei’s inner circle to secure his endorsement, misleading him about $LIBRA’s purpose. However, no transaction records have surfaced, and Davis hasn’t confirmed the messages, leaving this as hearsay for now.
KIP Protocol’s February 15 X post claims they were only a tech consultant for fund distribution, not market makers or token creators, pinning the launch on Kelsier Ventures. They say they weren’t even told when $LIBRA went live, distancing themselves post-crash. This could imply they gave Milei a sanitized version of their role, letting him assume broader legitimacy, though it’s not proof of deceit—just convenient backpedaling.
In his February 16 video and February 17 Coffeezilla interview, Davis blamed Milei’s deletion of the X post for the crash, saying, "Javier and his team unexpectedly changed their position," shattering investor confidence. He claimed Milei’s "associates" assured continued support, implying Milei reneged. This narrative paints Milei as the fall guy, despite Davis’s team extracting $107 million (per Lookonchain), suggesting an attempt to deflect culpability onto Milei’s actions rather than their own sell-off.
Davis’s insistence that he’s Milei’s adviser and controls $100 million in $LIBRA funds (Coffeezilla interview) contrasts with the government’s denial of any official link. By tying himself to Milei, Davis might be framing Milei as complicit to legitimize his own actions or shift scrutiny.
There’s indirect evidence—Davis’s alleged influence peddling, KIP’s vague assurances, the project’s opacity—that Kelsier Ventures and KIP Protocol might have misled Milei by overselling $LIBRA’s purpose while hiding its memecoin risks. Davis’s blame-shifting and insider cash-outs hint at deflecting onto Milei, but it could just be self-preservation, not a conspiracy to pin it on him.
The evidence screams foul play. Centralized supply, insider cash-outs, and zero transparency point to a classic pump-and-dump, with Davis and his crew as the architects. KIP’s role is murkier—complicit or convenient patsies? Milei might’ve been misled, his libertarian zeal exploited by slick operators who let him take the fall. Davis’s post-crash blame-shifting—“Milei’s team bailed”—feels like a frame job, but intent remains unproven.
Yet here’s the rub: more regulation wouldn’t have stopped this.
$LIBRA wasn’t alone in 2025’s memecoin madness. Donald Trump’s $TRUMP token, launched pre-inauguration in January, soared to $72 billion before crashing to $17 per token by mid-February—80% of supply held by insiders who dumped, per DexScreener. Melania Trump’s $MELANIA followed a similar arc, with Davis himself linked to its wallets (Bubblemaps). All three rode celebrity hype—Milei, Trump, Melania—pumped by posts on X, then bled dry by concentrated holders.
The differences?
$TRUMP and $MELANIA were pure memecoin plays, no pretense of economic utility. $LIBRA tried to immerse itself in Milei’s ideology. Trump and Melania distanced themselves faster—$TRUMP’s crash didn’t spark impeachment calls. Milei’s deeper involvement, real or staged, made $LIBRA’s fallout uniquely messy.
In the $LIBRA case, Kelsier Ventures and possibly KIP Protocol acted as gatekeepers. They leveraged Milei’s endorsement and the hype of a “national crypto project” to lure investors, while controlling 82% of the supply and extracting $107 million. Newcomers—misled about the token’s purpose and unaware of the insider dump—paid the toll, only to see the bridge collapse.
Platforms like Pump.fun, sued in 2025 for enabling similar memecoin scams, charge fees to “launch your token,” positioning themselves as the entry point while insiders snipe and dump, exploiting the uninformed.
This gatekeeper-extortion dynamic isn’t unique to crypto—it’s a financial industry staple where complexity and opacity create opportunities for bad actors.
We have seen it before
Predatory pay-day lenders target low-income borrowers needing quick cash, acting as the “only way” to access credit outside traditional banks.Exorbitant interest rates (sometimes 400% APR) and hidden fees trap the poorly informed, who lack alternatives or financial literacy.
Hedge Fund Placement Agents promise wealthy individuals access to exclusive hedge funds, claiming superior returns.They charge hefty fees or push funds with hidden risks (e.g., Madoff’s Ponzi scheme feeders), leveraging clients’ lack of due diligence and trust in “expertise.”
Forex Trading scammers or trading “mentors” sell trading platforms or courses as the path to forex riches, targeting novices. They manipulate spreads, fake performance data, or drain accounts via high fees, exploiting ignorance of currency markets.
Investment banks (e.g., Goldman Sachs) control IPO access, deciding who gets shares at the offer price. They allocate to favored clients (hedge funds, insiders) who flip for profit, while retail investors buy inflated aftermarket prices, misled about “fair access.”
In the Swiss and Luxembourg private banking sector, the concept of gatekeepers extorting or misleading newcomers aligns closely with the role of introducers—intermediaries who position themselves as essential for accessing the exclusive world of private banking or related legal services. These introducers often leverage Switzerland’s reputation for privacy, stability, and sophisticated wealth management, exploiting the complexity and opacity of the system to convince clients (especially non-residents from emerging markets) that they are the only path to entry.
Introducers (financial advisors, lawyers, or consultants) act as gatekeepers by claiming insider connections to top banks. They argue that banks rarely accept “cold” clients due to stringent AML rules and a cultural preference for referrals. This creates a bottleneck where newcomers feel compelled to pay premiums for entry, often unaware of alternatives or misled about the process.
Many private banks, especially smaller ones, rely on external introducers to source international clients. Introducers charge hefty fees (sometimes CHF 10,000–50,000 upfront or a 1-2% of assets) —claiming it’s the cost of “vetting” or securing a top banker. These introducers often pose as indispensable legal or financial experts. A 2021 UBP article notes the sector’s “trust-based” model, where introductions signal legitimacy. Introducers weaponize this, framing themselves as the only trusted bridge.
In 2023, a case surfaced (reported by PwC Switzerland) where a London-based introducer targeted Middle Eastern clients, charging 3% of assets to “guarantee” a Credit Suisse account before its UBS merger. Post-merger chaos amplified the pitch: “Swiss banking is consolidating; you need us now.”
In 2022 there was a famous Twitter thread featuring a Geneva-based firm charging crypto entrepreneurs CHF 20,000 to “unlock” a Sygnum account, alleging that otherwise “FINMA won’t approve direct applications.” Sygnum, however, offers online onboarding for clients, but many crypto projects would not know about it.
TLDR:
Crypto did not create the risk of gatekeepers and insiders. Bad actors and greedy middlemen have always existed. Regulations would not have solved it. It would be a shame to undermine or slow down the economic success of Milei with inflation, balanced budget and increased foreign investors as a result of a clear gatekeeper scam.