#$libra

...on many issues that won’t go away despite his best efforts Like a thorn in his side, President Javier Milei can’t seem to shake off the $Libra case. Opposition figures from various political circles are preventing him from doing so, and it doesn’t help that the scandal has led to complaints or lawsuits in three countries. But what’s complicating matters the most is his own actions, those of his sister Karina, and those of his collaborators, which have left a string of unanswered questions and disturbing clues, to say the least. The scandal began more than 150 days ago. On the night of February 14, an unknown 28-year-old American, Hayden Davis, who presented himself as a “crypto expert,” launched $Libra. That is, a “memecoin” that drew in hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to a tweet from President Milei who spread — or promoted — its supposed benefits, but which imploded after just five hours. From there, the storm intensified. Complaints were filed in Argentina, the United States, and Spain, and investors from several countries have since demanded their money back, while opponents smell blood in the water as investigators detected one inconsistency after another, with neither Milei nor his administration able to overcome the storm. Quite the opposite.

The argument that the president bears no responsibility because the crypto promotion happened “outside of working hours” is, at best, indefensible.

It doesn’t matter if it was on a Sunday, at home, or abroad—the post was made from his official, verified account, which is regularly used to communicate decisions, positions, and actions tied to his presidential role. That account is not personal, and anything shared through it cannot be separated from his public office. Suggesting that the presidency operates on a 9-to-5 schedule is a complete misunderstanding of the continuous nature of political representation.

The distinction between “sharing” and “promoting” also collapses in this context. That nuance might apply in ordinary situations, but when the country’s head of state shares something, the line becomes irrelevant.

A mere mention from the president implies endorsement. It builds public trust, attracts investment or interest, and gives legitimacy to whatever is being promoted. It’s even more serious when it comes to private ventures, because public officials are expressly prohibited from using their position to benefit private actors. This isn’t up for debate.

In addition, there are photographs of the president with individuals involved in the crypto project, suggesting at least some prior connection. This undermines the notion of an isolated or accidental gesture and strengthens the case for a serious inquiry into his involvement.

Did he know it was a potential scam?

That may be hard to prove. But the rhetorical contortions used to dodge responsibility only raise more questions. And ultimately, intent is not the only issue. The president is an economist, has experience in the crypto world, and should be held to a higher standard of diligence.

If he didn’t know, he should have known.

He’s not just any citizen—he’s the head of state.

Arguments this weak might work in Congress, where political alliances often outweigh logic and public ethics. But the public shouldn't be expected to accept this kind of hollow justification. Not even those who support his political space should stand behind this.

The president embodies the government and represents the state. He has a duty to understand the weight of his actions and to act responsibly. We cannot afford to expect—or accept—anything less.

Que se filtró "sin querer"? Y, viniendo de este gobierno no me sorprendería. Pero creo que me quedo con la idea de que alguien con más poder decidió que a este muñeco ya se le acabó la pila.