On February 23rd, Eastern Standard Time, a storm of sentiment surrounding World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and its USD1 rapidly spread in the market: on one hand, USD1 appeared to briefly depeg from its value on Binance before quickly rebounding, while on the other hand, there were large transfers of tens of millions of WLFI on-chain, interpreted by investors as a potential selling pressure signal. Meanwhile, WLFI core member Dylan (@0xDylan_) characterized this volatility as an "organized attack," while on-chain investigator ZachXBT previewed the release of a report on February 26th regarding "insider trading by employees of a highly profitable company," creating a narrative that, although not directly colliding, merged into a single panic scenario in market sentiment. The preview, transfers, and panic compounded each other, pushing what should have been a transparent advantage "visible on-chain" into a public crisis regarding trust and information asymmetry.
The panic chain reaction ignited by a preview tweet
● Around February 23rd, ZachXBT announced on social media that he would be releasing a report on February 26th regarding "insider trading by employees of a highly profitable company" in the crypto industry, emphasizing the keywords "insider trading" and "highly profitable company," while not mentioning WLFI or USD1 in any public statement. This timing fell during a particularly tense phase in market sentiment, making the detail-free report preview itself a blank canvas for various associations to be projected onto.
● Although ZachXBT did not mention WLFI, the market often tends to "automatically fit the bill" under emotional pressure: when a vague negative preview points to a "highly profitable company," investors instinctively search for "suspects" among the current trending projects. Against the backdrop of WLFI becoming the focus due to narrative heat and on-chain financial movements, this psychological mechanism prematurely entangled a project that had not yet faced any substantive accusations in an unverified chain of suspicion.
● In the crypto sphere, ZachXBT's reputation as a "chain forensic expert," built on past successful exposure cases, lends strong a priori credibility to any of his investigative previews. For many participants, a preview from him signifies a "high probability of substantial evidence," and this trust acts as a cleansing force in bullish times, but amplifies panic during tense emotions—markets often adjust positions based on expectations first, then await report details.
● In an environment of information asymmetry, the mindset of "sell off first and look at the report later" becomes an accelerator for emotional diffusion: some investors prefer to sell early to hedge against potential black swans, leading to an initial price drop; others attempt to short or set up buy orders at lower levels using the panic expectation. This preemptive play based on "negative expectations" triggers a chain reaction from a preview that has yet to materialize into specific projects, rapidly compressing space for rational discretion.
26.6 million whale transfer and coin...
● About two days before the event officially erupted, the on-chain address 0x5041 was monitored receiving 26.6 million WLFI, estimated at approximately 3.2 million USD at the time, and subsequently deposited 6 million WLFI into Binance, equivalent to 664,000 USD. This flow of funds, "first centralized then entered," timed closely with the ensuing emotional turmoil, provided the market with an imaginative on-chain story material.
● It is important to emphasize that this set of fund flow data regarding the 0x5041 address currently comes from a single source, and has not been cross-verified through multiple channels, nor is there authoritative information pointing to the true identity behind that address. It is essential to maintain a cautious premise when considering it as factual evidence, or it risks being interpreted in the dissemination process as "team wallet" or "insider," amplifying the risk of misinterpretation.
● At the peak of public sentiment, the proximity of large transfers and exchange deposits is often subconsciously interpreted by the market as a signal of potential selling pressure or "cash-out preparations." Especially against concerns of USD1's depegging and the simultaneous investigation preview, any on-chain actions suggesting "possible selling" will be amplified by sentiment into notes of "smart money running ahead," reinforcing retail investors' panic and expectation of a stampede.
● This culture of "seeing on-chain and telling stories" has long been entrenched in the crypto industry: addresses, amounts, and timestamps are neutral facts, but in a panic narrative, they can easily be pieced together into dramatized scripts like "insider trading," "team sell-offs," or "premeditated attacks." For segments of information lacking more context, the market tends to prefer the most conspiratorial and dramatic explanations rather than the most mundane possibilities.
The team angrily points to organized attacks: compliance...
● In the face of the market volatility on February 23rd, WLFI core member Dylan (@0xDylan_) quickly spoke out, categorizing the incident as an "organized attack," directly accusing individuals of deliberately attacking the project by exploiting emotions and information asymmetry. In his public response, he emphasized that attackers were trying to inflict substantial harm on WLFI and USD1 through the spread of panic and misleading narratives.
● While defending USD1, Dylan repeatedly emphasized "complete compliance" and "all assets are fully collateralized at a 1:1 ratio", attempting to rebuild market trust in the fundamental safety of the product through compliance frameworks and asset coverage rates. The signal this narrative path is trying to convey is that, regardless of short-term price fluctuations, the project itself does not have structural risks like a "funding black hole" or "fabricated out of thin air."
● The team’s prompt statement at the early stage of the turmoil helps fill the information vacuum in a short time, preventing panic from being completely dominated by a single narrative. However, at the same time, the public response did not disclose more detailed redemption data, collateral asset composition, or real-time audit information, staying instead at relatively vague expressions like "1:1 full collateralization," which, while maintaining the legal compliance bottom line, still struggles to fully meet investors’ expectations for detail transparency that typically demand "precision to the decimal point" on-chain.
● This dislocation arises from the fact that, on one hand, officials emphasize "we have no issues in regulation and asset terms," trying to reassure the market with legal and compliance language; on the other hand, investors are concerned about "whether anyone is selling early," "whether collateral assets are redeemable at any time," "whether there is selective disclosure of information." Between this gap, compliance and emotional security are not inherently equivalent; if the project cannot provide more granular data disclosures, even the strongest accusations of "organized attacks" cannot completely reverse off-market doubts.
Brief depegging followed by rapid rebound: stability...
● From the secondary market's performance, USD1 exhibited a brief deviation from the peg price on Binance during February 23rd, igniting concentrated concerns among holders about its stability. Subsequently, the price rebounded within a short time window, aligning back to the expected peg range, but due to the lack of unified, verifiable precise price points and market depth data from the outside world, this round of depegging and re-pegging process can only be described in profile as "brief depegging followed by rise."
● During a phase dominated by panic emotions, the first to choose to sell off are often two types of funds: high-leverage, low-tolerance short-term participants, who cannot withstand further volatility risks; and passive holders lacking information sources, whose trust in the project is weak. On the other side, there may be funds willing to take positions during the discount phase—these include speculative participants betting that the project will maintain pegging through market making and repurchase, hoping to profit from "re-peg price differences," as well as believers choosing to increase their positions against the trend based on the "1:1 collateral" official narrative.
● Theoretically, if the official stance on "1:1 full collateralization" and compliant operations is true, combined with the project party or partnered market makers providing some liquidity support in the secondary market, then such products, when facing short-term selling pressure, should have pathways for self-repair through mechanisms like buybacks, discounted arbitrage, and redemption windows. In practice, the ability of USD1 to rebound its price in a short time partly indicates that some funds played a "stabilizing role" amid the panic, though it remains unclear whether this is due to natural market forces or active intervention by the project party.
● The challenge lies in the fact that without real-time, detailed data disclosure, the market struggles to accurately determine whether a depegging event is a result of "technical fluctuations," "temporary liquidity shortages," or deeper structural issues. For holders, when they can only see price trajectories and hear the single account of "1:1 collateral," yet cannot verify the scale of redemptions and the state of collateral assets, each depegging may be viewed as a gamble on the reversibility of trust.
The fragile glory and...of politically endorsed projects
● WLFI quickly gained attention among numerous narrative projects largely because it is perceived as being associated with U.S. political figures, a political halo that naturally brings topic interest and spotlight effects in information flows. Due to briefing caution principles, detailed behavior and social media dynamics of specific individuals are not elaborated here, retaining only the macro label of "political figure association" to avoid falling into unverified gossip details.
● In a crypto bull market environment, political or celebrity endorsements often serve as "narrative amplifiers": they can combine more attention and capital inflow on the same technological and product foundation. However, this amplification can operate inversely during a crisis: once a project faces negative public sentiment or ambiguous accusations, the outside world will scrutinize it with greater intensity, and media and social platforms will focus their reports due to the inherently topical nature of "political relevance," amplifying the public pressure behind each fluctuation.
● From this event, when a project's brand and story heavily depend on "external authority," its trust structure becomes particularly fragile: it takes merely an unnamed investigative preview or a dramatized on-chain fund flow to trigger a chain of associations in the public mind linking "political figure association = greater scandal potential." Even though the facts have yet to be confirmed, this negative inference based on the celebrity halo is already sufficient to ignite a widespread trust crisis in a short time.
● For such projects, to maintain a balance between halo and scrutiny, they must achieve a transparency standard higher than ordinary projects: continual provision of on-chain asset proofs, regular audits, and real-time disclosures, as well as actively responding to sensitive issues like key address flows and risk event handling details. Otherwise, once public sentiment shifts, purely relying on a public relations-style statement or "compliance narrative" will struggle to resist being exponentially magnified under the political and celebrity filter of doubt.
Understanding the cost of crypto trust from this turmoil
The incident on February 23rd surrounding WLFI and USD1 is essentially a product woven from three forces: ZachXBT's investigative preview opened up a negative imaginative space psychologically; 0x5041 address's transfer of 26.6 million WLFI and 6 million into Binance provided dramatizable on-chain material; while Dylan's vigorous response about "organized attacks" further solidified a narrative of "attack and defense." These three elements collectively shaped a highly tense scene of panic, causing price fluctuations to far exceed the realm of ordinary market noise.
From a higher standpoint, the crypto market is attempting to find a new balance between "high visibility on-chain" and "overinterpretation of information." On one hand, publicly accessible addresses and transactions provide participants with unprecedented transparency; on the other, when participants lack sufficient analytical能力 and complete context, this transparency instead becomes fertile ground for conspiratorial narratives and emotional manipulation. How to delineate boundaries between protecting users from insider harm and preventing collective misinterpretation is a topic the entire industry is still exploring.
For products like USD1 and projects with political endorsement narratives, the core of future competition is likely not the speed of public relations response during a crisis, but rather whether they can build a near real-time transparency mechanism: on-chain proofs of assets and liabilities, ongoing disclosures of key addresses, and normalization of collaboration with third-party audits are the only long-term antidotes against "preview-style exposure + on-chain segment interpretation." This turmoil serves both as a rehearsal of risks and a mirror reflecting the trust structure of the entire industry—within this nearly traceable world, what is truly expensive is not the technology itself, but the time and costs willingly paid for transparency.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits 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。
