MELANIA and LIBRA Tokens Linked by Insider Profiteering
On-chain analysis reveals that MELANIA and LIBRA tokens are operated by the same team, profiting over $95 million through insider trading.

- MELANIA and LIBRA tokens share the same creator team.
- Insiders profited $2.4 million from MELANIA and $6 million from LIBRA.
- LIBRA team withdrew $87 million from liquidity pools.
Unveiling the Connection Between MELANIA and LIBRA Tokens
Recent on-chain investigations have uncovered a significant connection between the MELANIA and LIBRA tokens, suggesting they are operated by the same team. Blockchain analysis firm Bubblemaps has provided compelling evidence linking the two projects through shared wallet activities and insider trading practices.
Insider Profits and Questionable Practices
The analysis revealed that a specific wallet address, 0xcEA, was instrumental in both token operations. This address participated in the creation of the MELANIA token and provided funding support for the LIBRA token’s creator, DEfcyK. Through strategic “front-running” trades, the team behind these tokens secured substantial profits: over $2.4 million from MELANIA and an additional $6 million from LIBRA. These activities raise serious concerns about the ethical practices employed in the management of these tokens.
Bubblemaps: MELANIA and LIBRA belong to the same team. The wallet associated with the creator of MELANIA sniped MELANIA and made a profit of $2.4 million; the related address was not only associated with the creator of LIBRA who cashed out $87 million, but also sniped LIBRA and…
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) February 17, 2025
Massive Liquidity Withdrawal and Market Impact
Further scrutiny into the LIBRA token’s operations uncovered that the development team extracted approximately $87 million by removing USDC and SOL from the liquidity pool. This significant withdrawal not only destabilized the token’s value but also led to substantial losses for investors. The concentration of 82% of LIBRA tokens in a single wallet cluster, coupled with the lack of disclosed tokenomics, highlights the opaque and potentially manipulative nature of the project.