On February 23, 2026, a series of on-chain movements related to World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and public opinion waves ignited market nerves. On one side was the project narrative associated with U.S. political figure Eric Trump, and on the other, the whale address 0x5041 received approximately 26.6 million WLFI (around 3.2 million USD) and recharged 6 million WLFI (approximately 664,000 USD) to Binance just 20 minutes earlier. Meanwhile, Eric Trump was reported to have deleted tweets related to WLFI (pending verification), which, in the absence of details, was quickly interpreted emotionally as a “retraction of endorsement.” Amid these compounding signals, WLFI's price was reportedly short-term down 5%-8% (pending verification), exposing the macro risk-averse sentiment and the fragile valuation system of narrative tokens on that day.
Clash of Opinions and Signal Deconstruction
● Background of the project associated with political figures: WLFI's prominence lies in its being viewed as a "political narrative token" related to Eric Trump by some market participants, including that he was previously believed to have publicly endorsed WLFI and that there were claims he had a WLFI link in his personal profile (both of which are pending verification). Under this narrative, the project's valuation depends not just on fundamentals, but highly relies on political halo and the clout of celebrities, making any relevant movements associated with political figures amplify drastic price fluctuations.
● Timing of Whale Address 0x5041's Operations: On-chain data shows that address 0x5041 received about 26.6 million WLFI from related wallets that day, valued at approximately 3.2 million USD; subtly, about 20 minutes prior, the same address had already recharged 6 million WLFI to Binance, about 664,000 USD. This “first recharges part of the chips, then concentrates the receipt of massive chips” timing sequence is interpreted by the market as a typical whale rebalancing rhythm: on one hand, it reserves a liquidity exit for potential selling pressure, while on the other hand, it exacerbates retail speculation and panic regarding “insider trading.”
● Rumors of Deleted Tweets and Emotion Amplification: Coinciding almost with the whale activity, news spread that "Eric Trump has deleted tweets related to WLFI". Due to the lack of specific content and timestamps, this information remains in a "pending verification" state, but in a heightened emotional environment, it was rapidly interpreted as a "retraction of endorsement" or even "cutting ties with the project." The combination of significant whale transfers, Binance recharges, and rumors of deleted tweets formed a self-reinforcing panic narrative on social media, providing ample public opinion fuel for the accusation of a short-term 5%-8% price pullback of WLFI (pending verification).
26.6 Million Whale Transfer: Chip Games Under Selling Pressure Shadow
● On-chain Path and Timing Restoration: According to the brief, on February 23, 2026, address 0x5041 received a total of 26.6 million WLFI from WLFI related wallets, nominally valued at around 3.2 million USD. In absolute terms, this is enough to create a pricing weight among mid and small market cap tokens. Since the brief did not provide more detailed transaction paths, we can only confirm a one-way flow of "out of WLFI related wallets—concentrated entering 0x5041," yet must face the market's complex imagination of "project party's chips overflowing" or "large players' deep involvement" without more context.
● Binance Recharge Signal 20 Minutes in Advance: What the market pays close attention to is that the same address recharged 6 million WLFI to Binance approximately 20 minutes before receiving the coins, estimated at around 664,000 USD. This detail breaks the narrative of “passively accepting large transfers,” resembling the behavior of an actor with a clear disposal plan, sending part of the chips to the most liquid centralized exchange before the concentration of large chips to reserve a channel for potential selling. For short-term funds, this combination of “timing difference + exchange recharge” is viewed as a typical precursor to shorting or at least reducing positions, amplifying expectations of subsequent selling pressure.
● Emotional Reflection of the Short-term Decline of 5%-8%: The brief mentions that during this period, WLFI's price reportedly experienced a short-term decline of 5%-8% (pending verification). Although specific price points and market data have not been fully confirmed, against the backdrop of highly concentrated chips, such pullbacks are easily attributed to "whale dumping" or "insiders escaping in advance," further deepening retail distrust. The chip concentration enhances a single address's control over price, while also making the market more vulnerable to any disturbances: minimal selling pressure can trigger larger fluctuations, amplifying panic and liquidation risks.
Eric Trump’s Deletion of Tweets and the Risk of Celebrity Premium Collapse
● Pending Verification of Celebrity Endorsement and Profile Links: Before the event escalated, the market widely circulated claims that Eric Trump had publicly endorsed WLFI and included WLFI-related links in his personal profile (the brief clearly categorized this as “pending verification information”). Regardless of the extent of facts, this narrative constructed an imaginative space in investors' minds of "political endorsement + project token," infusing WLFI's valuation with significant political and celebrity premium, significantly amplifying the price's sensitivity to individual actions.
● How Deleted Tweet Rumors Were Read as “Retracting Endorsement”: On February 23, 2026, the market began to spread news that "Eric Trump deleted tweets related to WLFI", yet lacking any precise content and timestamp. Although the brief clearly defined it as “pending verification information,” the public opinion quickly provided the most pessimistic interpretation: from "cautious cooling" to "retraction of endorsement," and then to "complete severance," various versions spread rapidly on social media, becoming a catalyst for accelerating panic. The act of deletion itself might just be a PR adjustment, even possibly unrelated to the project, but in the narrative coin world with high faith fragility, it is seen as a signal of sudden directional change.
● Historical Cases of Celebrity Premium and Discount in Political Figures: Looking back at cryptos involving celebrities or political figures, one can find a commonality: initial words and actions often lead to significant premiums—prices and valuations far exceeding fundamentals, driven by attention and topicality; however, once the celebrity's attitude retracts, changes their statements or distances themselves from the project, the market quickly reverses the previous premiums to discounts. Whether involving sports stars, entertainment figures, or certain politicians or legislators participating in tokens, the outcome generally points to the same trajectory: the celebrity premium easily turns into a trading battleground over "direction of words and actions," and if the project's foundation is not solid, even if the truth of a word or tweet deletion has not been clarified, it can trigger a dramatic repricing.
From USD1 De-pegging to BTC Treasury Floating Loss: A Larger Background of Emotional Resonance
● Emotional Mirror of USD1 Falling to 0.9802 and Rising Again: In the same phase of the WLFI storm, the market observed a temporary de-pegging of USD1—the price fell from 1 dollar to about 0.9802 USDT before recovering (pending verification). The brief did not provide minute-by-minute order book data and on-chain capital flows, but even being just a price point illustrates that during emotionally sensitive periods, even tools seen as “stable anchor points” cannot fully remain immune from panic selling and liquidity mismatches. The rapid drop and recovery of USD1 reflect the market's short-term overpricing of risk, and the collective reality oscillating between fear and rationality.
● Weak Liquidity and the “Temporary De-pegging—Return” Model: Such short-term de-pegging during emotional shock phases is not uncommon, typically characterized by: liquidity pools being pressured under unilateral trading magnification, market-makers not keeping up with rebalancing tempo, and some traders taking the opportunity to amplify volatility for short-term arbitrage. After prices are pushed away from anchor points, they often quickly return when negative emotions ease or market-making funds replenish. This common “de-pegging—return” path indicates that the market structure possesses self-repairability, but during intense fluctuations, ordinary participants often only see the panic of the de-pegging moment, yet struggle to capture the rational recovery in the return phase timely.
● Strategy Holding 717,722 BTC with a Floating Loss of 7.059 Billion USD: The brief cited single-source data stating that an entity named "Strategy" holds 717,722 BTC, with a floating loss of approximately 7.059 billion USD. We will not delve into its building path and asset-liability structure, but this magnitude itself is sufficient to illustrate the issue: even large-scale institutions face enormous pressure in the current macro environment and market structure. This state of significant floating losses after accumulating chips at high levels resonates with the overall predicament of BTC treasury-like enterprises and ETF holders, creating a backdrop of "general capital anxiety" for high-risk tokens including WLFI.
Macro Headwinds and Regulatory Shadows: Repricing of Risk Appetite
● Bitcoin Treasury Enterprises' Continuous Three-Week Sell-off and ETF Capital Outflows: Market voices indicate that "for the first time in history, Bitcoin treasury-like enterprises have seen continuous sell-offs for three weeks", alongside "macroeconomic uncertainties and ETF capital outflows suppressing demand." This means that some institutions and enterprises previously viewed as "long-term firm holders" have begun to choose to actively reduce positions, and capital on the ETF side is no longer flowing in unidirectionally. In such an environment, the overall chip focus of the crypto market is moving downwards, and risk assets are generally facing valuation contractions; any negative narrative is more easily magnified into a selling reason.
● Tariffs and Macro Uncertainty's Impact on Risk Assets: Simultaneously, uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariff policy is exacerbating risk aversion sentiments in the U.S. and global markets. Higher expectations for trade barriers, oscillating growth prospects, and opaque policy paths are prompting funds to reallocate globally—pulling out from high-volatility, high-uncertainty assets and flowing back into what are seen as safer havens. In such a macro environment, crypto assets overall are placed in the “high beta risk asset” basket, making valuations more susceptible to systemic repricing.
● Political Narrative Tokens as an Outlet for Emotional Venting: Under the dual pressure of macro headwinds and regulatory shadows, tokens like WLFI with distinct political narrative labels tend to be treated by the market as “outlets for emotional venting.” As political statements, policy expectations, and regulatory winds intertwine, holders are no longer betting just on the project itself but on a highly uncertain political future. Thus, whenever there are negative marginal signals like whale activity or rumors of deleted tweets, the already wavering confidence can quickly collapse, leading to selling actions to “hedge” against dual concerns of political and regulatory risks.
CZ's Focus on the U.S. and Amplified Role of Binance
● Strategic Implications of CZ Desiring to Expand Business in the U.S.: According to Bloomberg reports, CZ expressed a desire to "conduct more business in the U.S." This is not only a commercial expansion vision for one of the largest centralized platforms globally but also a reassessment of the U.S. regulatory environment and market capacity: seeking a balance between compliance costs and market returns. For the crypto industry, this releases an important signal—despite high regulatory pressure, leading platforms still attempt to secure presence and clout in key jurisdictions.
● Binance.US and the Tug-of-War of Compliance-Market Share: In this context, the equity structure and operational strategy of Binance.US become a window for observation. Although the brief did not delve into shareholder and proportion details, the core contradiction is easy to understand: on one hand, operations must be cautious under the U.S. regulatory framework, meeting various compliance requirements; on the other hand, there is a need to maintain sufficient product richness and liquidity to retain market attractiveness. This tug-of-war determines that the platform often walks the tightrope between risk and opportunity in listing, delisting, risk control, and dealing with "political narrative tokens" and other high-sensitivity projects.
● WLFI Capital Flow to Binance Reflecting Platform Role and Clout: Returning to the actions of whale address 0x5041, its action of recharging 6 million WLFI to Binance before receiving 26.6 million WLFI highlights the key position of centralized platforms amid the storm. Whether a large sell-off actually occurred afterwards or not, this recharge has objectively introduced potential risks into a core domain of liquidity and price discovery. For the platform, this means bearing greater price fluctuation pressures during extreme market conditions and further consolidating its dual reality as a "risk event amplifier and buffer"—all emotions regarding whales, project parties, and celebrity statements will ultimately be directly reflected on the exchange's order book.
Whales, Politicians, and Emotions: Reminders for the Next Shock
The time-difference operations of whale addresses, the pending verification rumors of political figures deleting tweets, the short-term de-pegging of USD1, and the selling pressure from BTC treasuries and ETFs weave a complex chain for this WLFI scare day: celebrity endorsements shaped a fragile premium, whale activity provided the chip and timing trigger, while the macro and regulatory environments acted as amplifiers of emotional resonance. Under such a confluence of multiple factors, any single signal is difficult to independently interpret the market, yet in the narrative is stitched together into a “story of inevitable collapse.” For investors, what must be vigilantly watched is:
On one hand, one should avoid simply equating projects of “political narrative + celebrity effect” with a safety endorsement. Rumors of Eric Trump's deleted tweets and profile links are currently pending verification, and there is no on-chain or public evidence supporting the potential relationship between whale address 0x5041 and the WLFI team or other political figures. Treating unverified rumors as established facts may amplifying emotional volatility invisibly, transforming manageable market risks into irretrievable decision errors.
On the other hand, the evolution of future regulations, celebrity endorsement norms, and investor education may become a necessary path following such events: more jurisdictions may set disclosure obligations and conduct boundaries for politicians and celebrities participating in crypto projects, and platforms will raise thresholds in listing, marketing, and risk control; simultaneously, if investor education can emphasize more on “verification of information sources,” “compliance limits of celebrity behaviors,” and “comprehensive interpretation of on-chain data and macro environments,” it will help control emotional volatility within acceptable ranges when the next shock occurs. For individual investors, preempting risk management—including position control, diversified allocation, and maintaining skepticism towards suspicious information sources—may be the only practical choice to navigate through such narrative storms and avoid being caught by the collusion of whales and politicians.
Join our community, let’s discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
