Argentina's Milei shuts down task force investigating LIBRA scandal

Argentine President Javier Milei dissolved the Investigative Task Force (ITU) established to probe the LIBRA cryptocurrency debacle. The ITU’s dissolution, effective May 19th, followed a decree signed by Milei and Justice Minister Mariano Cúneo Libarona. This action comes despite opposition calls for a further investigation, scheduled for May 20th.

The ITU’s creation on February 19th stemmed from Milei’s promotion of LIBRA on his X account. This endorsement briefly propelled LIBRA’s value from near-zero to $5, creating a short-lived $5 billion market capitalization before a rapid collapse, characteristic of a pump-and-dump scheme. The incident triggered accusations of insider trading and market manipulation, directly implicating Milei.

The controversy significantly damaged Milei’s credibility. Nearly 58% of Argentinians reported a loss of trust in the president due to his involvement in the LIBRA scandal. Milei denies wrongdoing, claiming he merely shared information about a project aimed at assisting entrepreneurs. In a Todo Noticias interview, he stated he acted in good faith and that only a small number of Argentinians suffered losses, mostly Chinese and American investors.

However, blockchain data contradicts Milei’s claims. Cointelegraph’s analysis reveals over 15,000 wallets involved in LIBRA trading, with transactions exceeding $1,000 in profit or loss. A substantial majority (86%) of these wallets reported losses, totaling $251 million. This stark contrast between Milei’s statements and verifiable data underscores the gravity of the situation and the ongoing concerns surrounding the LIBRA incident. The dissolution of the ITU, despite the significant financial losses and widespread distrust, raises questions about the government’s commitment to fully investigating the allegations of fraud. The incident highlights the significant risks associated with cryptocurrency investments and the potential for manipulation by influential figures. The case serves as a cautionary tale regarding the regulatory challenges posed by memecoins and the need for increased transparency and accountability in the cryptocurrency market.