Talk:World Liberty Financial

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating the article! Have a very blessed weekend!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Another article?

Does Anybody Care This Is the Worst Bribery Scandal Since Teapot Dome? | The New Republic ~2025-35906-48 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Bulk editing without Talk

A reminder to fellow editors to please avoid making substantial bulk changes to the article (especially the lead) without first initiating a Talk page discussion, especially where those edits significantly alter scope, framing, or content volume. Per Wikipedia norms, major structural or interpretive changes benefit from prior consensus-building here before implementation. Thank you.Dakotacoda (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the lead as it currently stands, I think it runs afoul of WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE by leaning too heavily on attributed interpretation and stacking controversy up front instead of first summarizing the topic in a neutral, descriptive way. Critical coverage is clearly part of this article, but the lead should still function primarily as a balanced overview, with deeper evaluative framing handled in the body where it can be properly weighted.

As a starting point for discussion, a more neutral structural approach to the lead could look something like this:

“World Liberty Financial is a decentralized finance protocol and cryptocurrency company founded in 2024. The company has been publicly associated with Donald Trump and members of his family and operates in the cryptocurrency and stablecoin sector.

Since its launch, World Liberty Financial has attracted significant media attention regarding its ownership structure, investor relationships, and regulatory and political implications. The company has been covered by major news organizations in connection with questions surrounding conflicts of interest, foreign investment, and government policy.”

I welcome input on lead structure and weighting before any further large-scale changes are implemented.Dakotacoda (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Not opposed to your edits in theory, but you've since removed all mention of controversies and conflict of interest in the lead and all mentions of controversy and conflicts of interest have also been removed in the body. These were directly attributed and from multiple high-quality sources including The New York Times. Not sure why this information has been removed. BootsED (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with bulk changes if they are policy compliant, any editor can revert any changes that are not so but mass reversion of compliant content is definitely not OK. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Your editing of this article and that of the Witkoffs looks like that of a paid shill. It's pretty obvious that your intentions here are to whitewash the article to remove unflattering information even if it is well sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Lede Stuffing

While World Liberty Financial has been the subject of documented controversies, the ledeis not intended to function as a standalone controversy section. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should proportionally summarize the body of the article, which should presents events in a chronological manner rather than as a dedicated, synthesized controversy section. I suggest that a dedicated “Controversies” section be added to the body so the lead can accurately and proportionately summarize that content.Dakotacoda (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Dakotacoda, such sections are actually discouraged. "Controversial" material, in this case, should be part of the regular (chronological) history of a company. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• OK--that's not easy to do given that the "history" part is so poorly organized/arranged; it probably needs functional sections as sub-headings in the History section. If that happens, then it is easier to place condensed mentions in the lead. I can't say I'm happy with this edit. As for this edit by the IP, "crypto-focused sources which are not allowed on Wikipedia" is not a thing, though I won't argue for the actual content remaining in the article. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Management - titles are out of date

The titles are out of date, see company website.  == Peter NYC 17:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ownership stakes - Ownership section

It cannot both be true that the Trumps own 60% and the UAE Royal family own 49%. Jontel (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Token Fees

I think fees distribution should be included in the article and the corresponding founder firms - in case those firms appear somewhere else in the future and because of optics. They never said out loud "we own" x amount (but rather "some firm" owns), that was discovered through investigation. And secondly it seems that distribution changed through time: one of the old distributions was 1. 35%,2. 32.5%, 3. 30%, 4. 2.5% (that was around the inception on this token) and on 26 Jun 2026 is what is below. Also this would prove Trump family's stake becaause they get 2.,3.,4.~2026-36795-82 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
gold paper:
Fees Token Distribution:
1.33.893% Token Sale: A significant plurality of the $WLFI tokens were allocated to token sales to eligible participants, enabling widespread participation in the WLF Protocol’s decision-making and growth.
2. 32.6% - Community Growth and Incentives: This allocation is reserved for expanding participation in governance of the WLF community and for building the WLF Protocol.
3. 30% - Co-Founder Allocation: This allocation is for the DT Marks DEFI LLC [Trump family], Axiom Management Group [don't know], WC Digital Fi LLC [don't know].
4. 3.507% - Team and Advisors: This allocation enables the core team, advisors, service providers and personnel who have contributed or will contribute to the WLF Protocol’s development.

Other not mentioned important stuff

Just made notes along the way. There is a lot of crazy stuff of which some are illegal or non-ethical or borderline illegal sources

• WLF wanted Sun to use his TRON to mint $200 million of the company's USD1
• details of Sun's lawsuit: alleged treaths to Sun to delete his (voluntarily or they will) WLF tokens AND threaths to continue to mint USD1 or they will accuse him of money laundering
• Justin Sun given 1 billion tokens for his ivested $75 million in WLF
• In August 2025 WLF secretly modified the code of their smart contract to add "blacklist power" that let them freeze any wallet at will (move against Sun) - counter promised governance principles "no single digital wallet can exercise more than 5% of governance power"
• Bloomberg broke out news that WLF secretly sold 5.9 billion WLFI tokens in private deals to undisclosed buyers while early investors were locked out of 80% of their holdings - again circumvented governance principle
• In 2025 started approaching other crypto start ups and offered them to buy 10-30 million of their token and they would buy their token in return (price manipulation) - at least 5 struck a deal.
• Alt5 Sigma deals
• WLF Holdco LLC
• Aryam Investment 1
• sold tokens to North Korea, Iran, Russia
• pushed out other co-founders via an entity in which the Trump family holds a 60% stake (cannot find the name)
• Code behind USD1 was written by Binance acc to Bloomberg.
• MGX, a state controlled Abu Dhabi investment company, used the coin to buy $2 billion equity in Binance (what the article states) - that was and stil is 3/4 of all USD1 coins in circulation. (that's very telling of the scope)
• Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, and Tron, partnerships with Aave, Ondo, Chainlink, Sui, and Ethena
• WLC buying its native token with USD1
• On Valentine's day 2025 World Liberty Financial bought a load of Trump coins yet another investment in Trump coins
• UAE Aqua 1 Foundation
• Gibraltar, Puerto Rico
• debit card
• WLFI deposited 5 billion of its own tokens as collateral to borrow stablecoins
• hacker attack
• UFC fighters paid with USD1 ~2026-36795-82 (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)