logo
Javier Milei's Crypto Scandal

Javier Milei's Crypto Scandal

Yahoo25-02-2025
On February 14, Argentine President Javier Milei shared a link on X promoting a cryptocurrency called $LIBRA. The project, he claimed, will help "foster the growth of the Argentine economy by funding small companies and ventures." Almost immediately, his followers raised the alarm: 84 percent of the crypto's stock was owned by just three wallets, leading many to suspect a "rug pull" scheme—a scam in which a token's value is inflated through celebrity endorsement, only for the original developers to then withdraw all liquidity, leaving the investors with a worthless asset.
Just two hours after Milei's post, $LIBRA acquired around 40,000 investors and its price rose by 1,300 percent. Then, as many predicted, the developers sold all the tokens they retained, crushing its value, and walking away with roughly $113 million. Three out of four investors lost money, with some losing up to $5 million.
Not long after, Milei deleted his original posts, claiming he "wasn't acquainted with the details of the project" and "obviously has no connection" to it. He clarified that his accounts hadn't been hacked, as some had speculated. Milei was left with two options: admit he had been deceived or acknowledge that he had willfully participated in a scam. He chose the former, framing the endorsement as an honest mistake.
Sensing an opportunity, the Peronist Left called for impeachment proceedings, while others filed criminal charges against the president. But the Peronists are fragmented and leaderless: Their key figures are widely unpopular, and none are willing to pick a fight with Milei and capitalize on the scandal. Meanwhile, the centrist parties that occasionally collaborate with Milei introduced a Senate bill to create a special investigative committee. But the bill was struck down by the same senators who proposed it, many of whom remain uncertain whether to align with or oppose a president who shares their voter base and who is leading a painful but necessary economic recovery.
The opposition has remained disoriented since Milei assumed office a little over a year ago. Their lack of a viable alternative, combined with Argentina's economic performance under Milei's liberalizing reforms, has allowed the president to maintain unprecedented popular support. Since his inauguration, Milei has held a net positive approval rating of between 52 and 60 percent, as inflation reaches new monthly lows, the exchange rate remains stable, and the country exits recession. Despite the $LIBRA scandal, Argentina's stock market and international credit ratings remained steady. Milei's party, La Libertad Avanza, is even expecting legislative gains in October, which would allow it to fast-track its reform agenda.
Still, the crypto scandal suggests that Milei's administration may have grown too comfortable. For the first time, his team was on the defensive, facing substantial criticism—even from within his own administration. Hayden Davis, one of $LIBRA's developers, insisted that Milei himself hadn't profited from the token. But that only raised deeper questions: How did this happen, and who was behind it?
In a February 17 interview, Milei admitted he's "still not used to the idea of being president," that it's too easy to approach him, and that he'll need to "erect walls" to filter out fraudsters and prevent future blunders. Former President Mauricio Macri, who chairs the Republican Proposition party, one of Milei's key parliamentary allies, claimed that "President [Milei] is badly advised and not taken care of." Macri has long accused the president's advisers of being unserious and immature.
In the end, the scandal barely dented Milei's popularity—his approval rating dropped just four points. The limited fallout can be attributed to two factors: most of those affected by the scam were outside Argentina, and the incident pales in comparison to the corruption scandals surrounding Milei's rivals. The charge against Milei is being led by two former Peronist presidents: Cristina Kirchner, who faces two corruption sentences, and Alberto Fernández, who was recently indicted for physically assaulting his wife.
Yet the public remains divided. While 39.5 percent of Milei's supporters believe he made an earnest mistake, 49 percent think he acted deliberately. Meanwhile, 77 percent—including 60 percent of his own supporters—believe the incident warrants an investigation. This suggests that Argentines are willing to forgive Milei, but only if he demonstrates accountability and listens when supporters warn him of potential dangers—as they did when he first met with Hayden Davis back in January.
In response to the scandal, the president launched an internal investigation led by the presidency's Anti-Corruption Office. Many believe Milei should reevaluate who's in his inner circle, although he's reticent to do this. It will depend on what information emerges as to who persuaded him to endorse the cryptocurrency. Rumors already point to his tech advisor, Mauricio Novelli, and to others close to the president, including his sister and personal secretary, Karina Milei.
In weathering his first major political storm, Milei faces a critical test of leadership. He now has an opportunity to prove that his opponents have underestimated him, that he can regain control of the narrative, show accountability, and set himself apart from the corrupt practices of Argentina's political establishment. If not, he will have to lay low for a while to protect his people, and salvage his reputation by leaning more on his economic technocrats and moderate allies.
The post Javier Milei's Crypto Scandal appeared first on Reason.com.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.

The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.

Trump Has No Cards
Trump Has No Cards

Atlantic

time2 hours ago

  • Atlantic

Trump Has No Cards

President Donald Trump berated President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. He allowed the Pentagon twice to halt prearranged military shipments to Ukraine. He promised that when the current tranche of armaments runs out, there will be no more. He has cut or threatened to cut the U.S. funds that previously supported independent Russian-language media and opposition. His administration is slowly, quietly easing sanctions on Russia, ending 'basic sanctions and export control actions that had maintained and increased U.S. pressure,' according to a Senate-minority report. 'Every month he's spent in office without action has strengthened Putin's hand, weakened ours and undermined Ukraine's own efforts to bring an end to the war,' Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Elizabeth Warren wrote in a joint statement. Many of these changes have gone almost unremarked on in the United States. But they are widely known in Russia. The administration's attacks on Zelensky, Europeans, and Voice of America have been celebrated on Russian television. Of course Vladimir Putin knows about the slow lifting of sanctions. As a result, the Russian president has clearly made a calculation: Trump, to use the language he once hurled at Zelensky, has no cards. Trump does say that he wants to end the war in Ukraine, and sometimes he also says that he is angry that Putin doesn't. But if the U.S. is not willing to use any economic, military, or political tools to help Ukraine, if Trump will not put any diplomatic pressure on Putin or any new sanctions on Russian resources, then the U.S. president's fond wish to be seen as a peacemaker can be safely ignored. No wonder all of Trump's negotiating deadlines for Russia have passed, to no effect, and no wonder the invitation to Anchorage produced no result. There is not much else to say about yesterday's Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska, other than to observe the intertwining elements of tragedy and farce. It was embarrassing for Americans to welcome a notorious wanted war criminal on their territory. It was humiliating to watch an American president act like a happy puppy upon encountering the dictator of a much poorer, much less important state, treating him as a superior. It's excruciating to imagine how badly Trump's diplomatic envoy, Steve Witkoff, an amateur out of his depth, misunderstood his last meeting with Putin in Moscow if he thought that the Alaska summit was going to be successful. It's ominous that Trump now says he doesn't want to push for a cease-fire but instead for peace negotiations, because the latter formula gives Putin time to keep killing Ukrainians. It's strange that Russian reports of the meeting focused on business cooperation. 'Russian-American business and investment partnership has huge potential,' Putin said today. I appreciate that many Ukrainians, Europeans, and of course Americans are relieved that Trump didn't announce something worse. He didn't call for Ukrainian capitulation, or for Ukraine to cede territory. Unless there are secret protocols, perhaps some business deals, that we haven't yet learned about, Anchorage will probably not be remembered as one of history's crime scenes, a new Munich Conference, or a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But that's a very low bar to reach. The better way to understand Anchorage is not as the start of something new, but as the culmination of a longer process. As the U.S. dismantles its foreign-policy tools, as this administration fires the people who know how to use them, our ability to act with any agility will diminish. From the Treasury Department to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, from the State Department to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, agency after agency is being undermined, deliberately or accidentally, by political appointees who are unqualified, craven, or hostile to their own mission.

The Democrats' Biggest Senate Recruits Have One Thing in Common
The Democrats' Biggest Senate Recruits Have One Thing in Common

Atlantic

time4 hours ago

  • Atlantic

The Democrats' Biggest Senate Recruits Have One Thing in Common

When news broke this week that Sherrod Brown would run next year to reclaim a Senate seat in Ohio, Democrats cheered the reports as a huge coup. Before losing a reelection bid last year, Brown had been the last Democrat to win statewide office in a state that has veered sharply to the right over the past decade. His entry instantly transforms the Ohio race from a distant dream to a plausible pickup opportunity for the party. If most Democrats were ecstatic about Brown's planned comeback bid, Amanda Litman was a bit less jazzed. To be sure, she's a big fan of Brown, the gravelly-voiced populist who was once seen as a formidable presidential contender. (He never did run for the White House.) But Brown is now 72, and Litman, the founder of a group that encourages and trains first-time candidates, has been among the loudest voices calling for Democrats to ditch their gerontocracy once and for all. 'In a year like this, if Sherrod Brown is really the best and only person that can make Ohio competitive, that's who we should run,' Litman told me. But, she quickly added, 'it is a damning indictment' of the Democratic Party in states such as Ohio that a just-defeated septuagenarian is its most viable choice. Litman has called for every Democrat over the age of 70 to retire at the end of their current term in office. A few have heeded that message: Earlier this year, Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois (80), Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire (78), Tina Smith of Minnesota (67), and Gary Peters of Michigan (66) all announced that they would not seek reelection next year. But in some of the nation's biggest Senate races, Democrats are relying on an old strategy of recruiting—and then clearing the field for—long-serving party leaders with whom voters are already familiar. Helen Lewis: The Democrats must confront their gerontocracy In North Carolina, top Democrats aggressively lobbied former Governor Roy Cooper (68) to run for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Republican senator, Thom Tillis. And in Maine, the party is waiting to see if Governor Janet Mills (77) will challenge five-term Senator Susan Collins, the GOP's most vulnerable incumbent, who is 72. If they run and win, Brown would be 80, Cooper would be 75, and Mills would be 85 at the end of their first Senate terms. Democratic strategists and advocates I spoke with acknowledged the tension between the party's broadly shared desire to elevate a new generation of leaders and its embrace of older candidates in these key Senate races. But they said the decision was easy in the states they most need to win next year. 'The frustration of voters, donors, and younger elected officials is real,' Martha McKenna, a former political director of the Senate Democrats' campaign arm, told me. But Cooper and Brown (and potentially Mills) 'are brave patriots who have already shown they know how to run and win, which is thrilling to the Democratic grassroots base.' Any Democrats unhappy with their candidacies, McKenna added, 'are defeatist bed wetters who would rather complain from the sidelines than get into the fight.' Winning the Senate is a long shot for Democrats in 2026. They would need to flip at least four Republican-held seats without losing any of their own, and the only blue state where a Senate race is up for grabs is Maine. But even a gain of two or three seats could put Democrats in position to take the majority in 2028, and they hope that a voter backlash to President Donald Trump's second term, combined with the recruitment of strong candidates, could put states such as North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, and Alaska in play next year. Republicans have also tried to woo popular governors to mount Senate campaigns, with less success: Governors Chris Sununu of New Hampshire (50) and Brian Kemp of Georgia (61) each passed on the opportunity. Brown lost to Bernie Moreno by three and a half points in a state that Trump carried by 11 points. He will likely start as an underdog against Senator Jon Husted, who was appointed by Governor Mike DeWine to fill the seat that J. D. Vance vacated when he became vice president. But even if Brown falls short, Democrats argue, his strength as a candidate could force Republicans to spend millions of dollars they would otherwise have directed elsewhere. No other Democrat in Ohio can make the same case. The push for Democrats to get younger has been driven not only by the party's panic over former President Joe Biden's age and performance last summer, but by the more recent deaths of three House Democrats during the first five months of 2025. The activist David Hogg sparked an internal feud by declaring, soon after becoming the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, that he would back primary challengers to some party incumbents in safe House seats. Younger Democrats did win key Senate seats last year in Arizona, New Jersey, and Michigan. And the party's leading Senate contenders for 2026 in Texas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Minnesota are in their 40s and early 50s. 'We are in the fight of our lives, and that requires a truly multigenerational front,' Santiago Mayer, the founder of the youth-oriented progressive group Voters of Tomorrow, told me. 'Of course we need young people running. We need young leaders who are vocal and visible around the country.' But Mayer said he had no problem with older Democrats such as Brown, Cooper, and (possibly) Mills leading the way in crucial races. 'We need to be supporting the candidates who are proven winners,' he told me. Nowhere are Democrats more desperate to win than Maine, where Collins's resilience has both frustrated the party and scared off some of its rising stars. In 2020, Collins defeated a well-funded Democratic opponent by nearly nine points even as Biden carried the state by the same margin. Her approval ratings are even lower than they were at this time six years ago, and Democrats consider the state a must-win in the battle for the Senate. Yet hardly any Democrats have stepped up to take her on. (Jordan Wood, a onetime aide to former Representative Katie Porter of California, is the best-known declared candidate so far.) Representative Jared Golden, who holds a rural House district that Trump carried three times, decided to seek reelection rather than higher office. And several up-and-coming Democrats have opted to run for governor instead of challenging Collins. To a large extent, everyone is waiting on Mills, who trounced her predecessor, Paul LePage, in his 2022 comeback bid and then drew national attention by telling Trump, 'See you in court' during a confrontation at the White House earlier this year. The governor, however, is in no rush to make a decision and has evinced little excitement about becoming a freshman senator in her late 70s. 'I mean, look, I wasn't born with a burning desire to be in Washington, D.C.—any month of the year,' Mills told a local radio station last month even as she acknowledged that she was seriously considering a Senate campaign. One national Democratic strategist told me that the odds of Mills entering the race are about 50–50; another put the chances lower. The strategists showed little concern about Mills's age, noting that she doesn't appear any older than Collins (even though she is by five years). The issue may not resonate as much in Maine anyway, which has the oldest population of any state in the country. Democrats have had mixed success relying on former governors to harness their cross-party popularity as state leaders in competitive Senate races. In 2020, then–Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper defeated GOP Senator Cory Gardner to help Democrats recapture the majority. And the four Democratic senators from Virginia and New Hampshire all previously served as their state's governors. But in 2016, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland lost by more than 20 points in his bid to oust a Republican senator. Two years later in Tennessee, former Governor Phil Bredesen met a similar fate. Litman argues that part of the Democrats' problem is a fear of competitive primaries, which both parties try to avoid in Senate races because of their expense and the risk that the winner will emerge damaged for the general election. Some believe the lack of a presidential primary in 2024 hurt Kamala Harris's chances against Trump. 'That is how you keep Democratic voters engaged,' Litman said. 'If we've learned anything from 2024, it's that primaries are good.' She's optimistic that as younger Democrats run and win at the local level, the party's bench in red and purple states will get deeper, and the elections where its hopes hinge on aging former stars will become more rare. 'It's not like in one election cycle, everyone over the age of 70 is going to be thrown out,' she said. 'This is the first big generational-change election for the Democratic Party. It's not going to be the last.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store