The controversy around Justin Sun and World Liberty Financial (WLFI) continues to unwind, with the Tron founder calling out the Trump family’s DeFi project for unfairly freezing his tokens.
The clash highlights deep divisions in the WLFI community and raises broader questions about trust, transparency, and governance in one of the most hyped projects of 2025.
Sun Demands Fairness and Transparency
Justin Sun confirmed that World Liberty Financial had indeed blacklisted his wallet, holding 540 million unlocked WLFI tokens and 2.4 billion locked tokens.
“My tokens were unreasonably frozen…Tokens are sacred and inviolable—this should be the most basic value of any blockchain. I call on the team to respect these principles, unlock my tokens, and let’s move forward together toward the success of World Liberty Financials,” Sun lamented.
In the post, shared on X (Twitter), Justin Sun said he had gone beyond investing $75 million into WLFI, which made him the largest outside backer. Based on this, he articulated his trust and support for the future of this project.
Sun added that unilateral actions like freezing investor assets risk damaging broader confidence in World Liberty Financials. He says the move also undermines the principles of fairness and transparency that blockchain is built upon.
Nevertheless, as BeInCrypto reported, Justin Sun and WLFI leaders are already actively communicating.
WLFI claims the decision was tied to suspicious exchange activity, alleging that tokens tied to Sun were moved toward trading platforms and potentially used to suppress WLFI’s price.
While WLFI did not name the exchange, suspicions have centered on HTX, a platform where Sun has heavy influence and which recently offered 20% APY on WLFI deposits.
Notaz.eth, an analyst on X, said the freeze came after on-chain data showed Sun’s wallet transferring 50 million WLFI, worth around $9 million, toward exchanges. Shortly after, WLFI’s price slid nearly 50% from $0.30 to $0.15.
Nevertheless, Sun denies selling, insisting the transactions were only “minor deposit tests” with small amounts that could not impact the market.
Community Divided Amid Political and Market Fallout
The WLFI community remains sharply divided. Some accuse Sun of secretly offloading tokens or using user funds to cover his locked holdings.
Analyst Jacob King called Sun and WLFI “scammers” and urged investors to avoid the project altogether. Another user accused Sun of running market-making shorts to damage WLFI’s chart.
However, others see WLFI’s actions as an overreach that contradicts blockchain’s ethos of decentralization.
“Wouldn’t freezing tokens undermine the very foundation of trust and transparency that blockchain promises? If fairness is compromised, how can World Liberty Financials expect long-term confidence from its community?” one user posed.
Even industry veterans have taken sides. Analyst Quinten François argued that WLFI’s circulating supply never matched its reported volumes. This raises suspicion that Justin Sun and exchanges were selling from launch day.
“There’s two camps now: one angry at Sun for pushing WLFI down, the other angry at the Trumps for freezing accounts,” he stated.
The dispute has also taken on political dimensions. One open letter from community members urged Donald Trump, a vocal supporter of WLFI, to push regulators to investigate Sun’s trading activities.
“Such behavior erodes investor confidence but may also cause irreversible damage to the crypto project you have publicly supported,” read an excerpt in the letter.
Meanwhile, WLFI’s token price has faltered despite billions in reported trading volume. At launch, only 6.8% of the total supply, valued at $1 billion, was in circulation, yet prices have steadily declined.
Critics argue that this points to concentrated selling by major holders, including Sun and partner exchanges.
The WLFI controversy highlights crypto’s enduring tensions of decentralization versus control. Sun portrays himself as a victim of centralized overreach, while WLFI defends its actions as necessary to protect the community from manipulation.
Both narratives have fueled skepticism at a time when retail investors already feel burned by opaque governance and insider influence.
