Did Argentinian president melei do a rug pull shortly after introducing $Lyra meme coin created davis creator of $trumpcoin
Executive summary
President Javier Milei promoted a meme token called $LIBRA that spiked to about $5 and then fell to roughly $1 within hours, triggering accusations of a “rug pull” and legal complaints that have led to judicial probes and political fallout [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and industry sleuths say insiders cashed out large sums (reports cite roughly $100m on-chain) and estimates of investor losses range from hundreds of millions to several billion, while official investigations and some outlets note the ties and responsibilities remain contested [4] [5] [6].
1. Milei’s public promotion and the immediate market reaction
On Feb. 14–16, 2025, Milei posted about a newly launched memecoin called $LIBRA and linked to a site claiming it would “boost” Argentina’s economy; within hours the token jumped from near zero to as high as $5 and then collapsed to about $1, prompting accusations that his endorsement precipitated a market run and crash [1] [2]. Multiple outlets report Milei deleted the post as criticism mounted and the fintech chamber and other observers called the episode a possible rug pull — the term for a rapid pump-and-dump executed by insiders and promoters [1] [3] [7].
2. What “rug pull” allegations mean here and on-chain signals
A rug pull, as described by Reuters and BBC, involves project backers inflating a token’s price then withdrawing liquidity so ordinary holders are left with near-worthless assets; on-chain investigators and Galaxy Research pointed to an instantaneous dump by insiders that moved roughly $100 million and is being cited as evidence of such a scheme in $LIBRA’s collapse [3] [4]. Crypto-focused outlets and analysts described delistings, rapid insider sales and links to firms and individuals with prior bad-actor allegations — factors that, together, underpin the rug-pull characterization in much reporting [8] [9] [4].
3. Legal and political consequences so far
Lawyers filed fraud complaints accusing Milei of being a “fundamental participant” in planning and promoting what they call a mega-scam; Argentina’s public prosecutor and a federal judge opened probes and opposition politicians pushed for impeachment proceedings after the market fallout [1] [10] [3]. Coverage from Reuters and The Guardian underscores the direct political damage to Milei’s agenda and the formal legal steps taken by critics and some investigators [2] [1].
4. Scale of investor losses and differing estimates
Published figures vary: outlets describe losses in the hundreds of millions to multi‑billion-dollar ranges — Forbes referred to billions vaporized and other summaries put losses in the low‑hundreds-of-millions; the discrepancy reflects different methods (market-cap snapshots, on-chain tracing, and claims by aggrieved investors) and the difficulty of valuing rapidly traded, illiquid memecoins [5] [6] [11]. Available sources do not provide a single, definitive audited loss figure; instead they cite estimates and on-chain sleuthing [4] [5].
5. Links to the $TRUMPCOIN creator “Davis” and questions of provenance
Some reporting and the Wikipedia summary claim the project involved a creator named Davis, who had prior associations with other meme tokens and claimed advisory ties to Milei — though the Argentine government denied formal connections [6]. Crypto media allege Kelsier Ventures and individuals tied to prior alleged scams were involved in $LIBRA’s creation, but mainstream outlets stress that determining legal responsibility for promotion versus issuance requires judicial findings [8] [9] [6].
6. Competing narratives and what’s proven versus alleged
Mainstream outlets (Reuters, BBC, The Guardian) present the sequence: Milei promoted $LIBRA, the token spiked and then crashed, and critics labeled it a rug pull while authorities opened probes [1] [2] [3]. Crypto outlets frame the episode as the “largest rug pull” and tie it to alleged serial actors [8] [9]. At present the difference is between observable market events and contested culpability: on-chain movements and filings are factual in reporting, but criminal liability for Milei or named operators remains under investigation [4] [10].
7. What remains unreported or unresolved
Available sources do not yet report a final judicial finding that definitively convicts Milei or any named individual of orchestrating a rug pull; investigations and asset freezes were reported later, but a completed legal determination is not in the cited articles [12] [6]. Precise, audited totals of investor losses and a public, court-backed tracing of proceeds to specific actors are not found in current reporting [5] [6].
8. Takeaway for readers and watchers
The facts established in reporting are clear: Milei promoted $LIBRA, the token spiked and then crashed rapidly, on-chain sleuths detected large insider sales, and political and legal backlash followed [1] [4] [3]. Whether that sequence legally constitutes a rug pull orchestrated by Milei or co-conspirators remains a matter for the courts and forensic accounting; readers should treat criminal claims as allegations until prosecutors or judges issue definitive rulings [10] [12].