The high-profile saga surrounding the controversial LIBRA cryptocurrency took a dramatic turn this week as Hayden Mark Davis, CEO of Kelsier Ventures, testified in a federal court in New York. Davis, an American entrepreneur at the centre of the storm, vehemently denied allegations of fraud and insider trading linked to the meteoric rise and collapse of the LIBRA token.
Argentinian newspaper La Nacion reported that Davis submitted a voluntary statement to the court last Monday, seeking to clear his name in the class action lawsuit filed by U.S. investors who suffered substantial losses. The case has gained international attention for its blend of meme coin speculation, political intrigue, and questions about crypto market integrity.
Deleted Presidential Endorsement Blamed for Crash
In his testimony, Davis squarely blamed the collapse of LIBRA’s price on Argentine President Javier Milei’s sudden decision to delete a social media post endorsing the token. According to Davis, Milei’s original post sparked a surge of interest and investment in LIBRA, but the deletion days later fueled rumours that the coin was a scam, triggering a wave of panic selling.
“This was not a scheme to defraud anyone,” Davis insisted, emphasising LIBRA’s stated mission of supporting small businesses and educational programmes in Argentina. He categorically denied any personal involvement in the alleged actions of “snipers,” individuals who supposedly bought large quantities of LIBRA tokens just before the official launch, reaping massive profits when prices soared.
Questioning Jurisdiction and Legal Venue
Davis’s statement also took aim at the legal basis for the case being tried in New York. He argued that neither he nor his company has ties to New York and that the LIBRA project was conceived and launched in Argentina. Therefore, he contended, any legal proceedings should be handled by Argentine courts rather than the U.S. federal system.
His pushback on jurisdiction adds another layer of complexity to an already tangled international case, as legal experts debate which country’s laws should apply to the cross-border digital asset dispute.
Attempted Refund and Frozen Funds
In a surprising revelation, Davis disclosed a plan to return approximately $100 million in investor funds that he reportedly moved between February 14 and 15, 2025. However, that plan was thwarted by a U.S. court order that froze more than $55 million in crypto assets tied to the project, effectively blocking any attempt at restitution.
The freezing of LIBRA-linked funds highlights the growing power of courts to intervene in crypto markets, even across international borders, a trend that is causing both relief and alarm among investors and industry leaders.
Political and Legal Probes Widen
The LIBRA saga has also drawn scrutiny in Argentina, where the Argentine Congress has formed a special commission to investigate the token’s meteoric rise and fall. Lawmakers are examining the role of President Milei and how he came to post and then delete an endorsement that many see as pivotal to the coin’s volatility.
Some experts have questioned whether Milei had access to privileged information about LIBRA’s development and whether his social media activity inadvertently misled thousands of investors. “The circumstances of the president’s involvement remain unclear,” said one Argentine analyst quoted by La Nacion, “and that uncertainty is fueling both legal and political concerns.”
Meme Coins and the Power of Influence
Beyond the specifics of Davis’s defence, the LIBRA case has reignited debates over the risks posed by meme coins, cryptocurrencies that often lack clear utility or governance but can attract massive speculation based on internet hype or celebrity endorsements.
The case starkly illustrates how a single tweet from a high-profile figure can send crypto markets into a frenzy, underscoring the need for both regulators and investors to tread carefully in a space where information spreads rapidly and unpredictably.
As investigations continue in both the U.S. and Argentina, the LIBRA controversy stands as a cautionary tale about the volatility of digital assets, the influence of public figures, and the legal challenges that emerge when crypto markets collide with global politics.
