Post

To be honest—— In the crypto circle, the name "Warren" is basically synonymous with a public enemy. She is anti-Bitcoin, anti-ETF, and wants to strangle the entire industry. Over the past few years, every time she speaks, we wish she would just shut up. But this time, it's different. On August 4th, Warren and Democratic Senator Blumenthal jointly sent a letter to SEC Chair Atkins. They requested an investigation into one thing: whether Trump's meme coin TRUMP is a "Rug Pull." I know what you want to say—"Warren is just doing political attacks again." Hold on, look at the data. On January 17, 2025, three days before inauguration, the TRUMP token was launched. The next day, Trump himself posted a promotion on X. The market cap once surged to $9 billion. And then? Now the coin price is less than $1.5. It has dropped 98% from its peak. Nearly 1 million wallets suffered losses, with a total loss of $3.81 billion. Two-thirds of buyers lost all their money. Meanwhile—how much did Trump-related entities earn from this coin? $636 million. 80% of the token supply is held by parties related to the Trump Organization. Nearly 1 million people lost $3.8 billion. One person earned $636 million. This is not something that can be glossed over with "markets have risks, invest cautiously." This is blatant "power monetization." A president launched a coin three days before taking office, endorsed it with his name and position, called on supporters to buy in, and then—nothing. The coin price dropped 98%, supporters lost their money, the president's wallet got fat. Warren wrote a sentence in the letter that I read three times: "Even if potential violators include those with strong political connections, the SEC must enforce the law." That sentence is spot on. I know you want to say: "Meme coins are not securities, the SEC has no jurisdiction." Indeed, the SEC itself has said before that meme coins have "limited use or function" and do not meet the definition of securities. But this time it's different. This is not a dog coin launched by an anonymous team. This is the U.S. president promoting it with his official account, endorsing it with his identity, raising funds among his supporters. And then earning $636 million. If this is not "profiting from power," then what is? If this is not worth investigating, then do the words "conflict of interest" still mean anything? Some say Warren is doing politics, pressuring the negotiation of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Maybe. But political motives aside, the problem itself remains. You can oppose all of Warren's crypto policies. You can think she just wants to kill innovation. But the question she raised this time— "A president launched a coin three days before inauguration, causing nearly a million supporters to lose $3.8 billion while he earned $636 million, and the SEC chair regulating him was appointed by himself"— This question itself is valid. For the crypto industry to truly go mainstream, it must accept one reality: When a president launches a coin to harvest supporters, the entire industry's credibility is being overdrawn. We shout every day "Don't trust, verify." But the president launches a coin, supporters don't even bother to verify, they just rush in. After rushing in, they lose 98%, then who do they blame? The market? The whales? Or the person who launched the coin? We cannot shout "decentralization" on one hand and tolerate the most centralized power cutting leeks in this circle on the other. I am not a supporter of Warren. I wasn't before, I'm not now, and most likely won't be in the future. But this time, the question she raised deserves every crypto practitioner to seriously think about. Not about "how to fight back against Warren," But about—does our industry really want to have a bottom line? $BTC $TRUMP $WLFI #特朗普代币遭参议员要求调查