WLFI blacklists Justin Sun after a transfer of 50 million tokens

Tech

WLFI blacklists Justin Sun after a transfer of 50 million tokens

An address believed to be linked to CoinGecko and publicly associated with Justin Sun has been flagged on the “blacklist” after a transfer of approximately 50 million WLFI to HTX, valued at around 9 million dollars. Meanwhile, the project announced an on‑chain burn of 47 million tokens, while the price experienced a sharp decline: from a peak of about 0.32 dollars to levels below 0.18 dollars – a reduction of approximately 43-44% – in a context of marked volatility and uncertainty, with data updated as of September 5, 2025, and verifiable on on‑chain explorers.

According to data collected by on‑chain monitoring tools like Etherscan and proprietary analyses, the transfer and subsequent burn are recorded in the public blockchain snapshots. Market analysts following WLFI note that the combination of a transfer to an exchange and the simultaneous “blacklist” notification tends to compress liquidity and accentuate volatility in markets with thin order books.

WLFI blocks Justin Sun: the fact in brief

On-chain analyses indicate that a wallet publicly linked to Justin Sun has been labeled as “blacklisted” after a significant transfer of WLFI to the HTX exchange. Shortly thereafter, World Liberty Financial announced an intervention on the supply with a targeted burn. In this context, Sun downplayed the possibility of a sale, claiming that it was technical testing related to deposits and address “dispersion,” without liquidation purposes.

• Transfer: approximately 50 million WLFI sent to HTX, with an estimated value of around 9 million dollars.
• Blacklist: the address has been flagged by on-chain monitoring tools.
• Supply: 47 million WLFI burned; the price experienced a sharp decline following the event.

Essential Timeline

• In the last few hours: movement of approximately 50 million WLFI towards HTX, with the address flagged by on-chain trackers.
• Coming up next: announcement and execution of the burn (47 million WLFI) in an attempt to contain further selling pressure.
• During the week: the price, starting from a high of about $0.32, fell to settle below $0.18, marking a substantial loss (approximately 43-44%) – data that varies across different platforms.

Market: Price Dynamics and Liquidity

The decline following the launch seems to reflect multiple factors: profit-taking at the debut, concerns related to the blacklist, and a relatively thin order book on some venues. During periods of stress, spreads tend to widen, while volumes concentrate on a few exchanges, accentuating volatility and price fragmentation. That said, quotations can vary significantly between platforms, and data related to price and market capitalization are reported by aggregators like CoinGecko.

Burn and Buybacks: What Changes in the Offering

The project conducted an on-chain burn of 47 million WLFI, sending the tokens to an unrecoverable address to reduce the circulating supply. Despite the intervention, the total indicated supply remains high, standing at around 99.95 billion units. In fact, the burned tokens represent about 0.047% of the overall supply, a relatively limited cut when compared to the total amount.

A buyback program funded by the fees generated by the protocol has also been proposed, with the intention of subsequently sending the repurchased tokens to burn addresses. It must be said that the effectiveness of this operation will depend on the actual demand and the protocols ability to generate sustainable fees over time.

• Burned tokens: 47 million WLFI (~0.047% of the total indicated supply).
• Total supply: around 99.95 billion WLFI post-burn (data reported by the project).
• Buyback: funded by fees; the repurchased tokens should subsequently be burned.

Blacklist and on-chain operations: practical impacts

Labeling an address as “blacklisted” can limit the movement of tokens from certain wallets and on specific platforms, impacting the sales flow and price formation. Justin Sun denied the hypothesis of liquidating the token, reiterating that it was merely tests related to deposits and address dispersion. In this context, transparency on transaction hashes and the addresses involved remains essential to clarify the matter.

Sentiment, risks, and open issues

Social indicators and some trading metrics suggest a cautious or even negative sentiment on WLFI. Among the concerns are fears of further token unlocks, the concentration of liquidity on a few exchanges, and uncertainty regarding the mechanisms and governance of the blacklist. The question remains open: who has the authority to activate a blacklist and with what guarantees of impartiality？ Without an organic and stable demand, even operations like burn and buyback might have limited and mostly temporary impacts.

Key Numbers to Remember

• Reported transfer: approximately 50 million WLFI transferred to HTX, with an estimated value of around 9 million dollars.
• Burn executed: 47 million WLFI burned on-chain.
• Estimated supply: around 99.95 billion WLFI post-burn.
• Price: peak around $0.32, with a sharp drop to values below $0.18, with variations between exchanges.
• Context: the burn represents approximately 0.047% of the declared total supply.

Methodological Notes

At the time of publication, there are no verifiable direct links available related to the on-chain alert that tagged the address, nor to the transaction hashes mentioned in this article. The indicated timings (e.g., “in the last few hours”) are reported in a generic form to avoid introducing unconfirmed precise dates. The estimates on supply and percentages are based on data communicated by the project and on public snapshots of on-chain explorers; the updates mentioned are current as of September 5, 2025, and may be subject to changes with further official confirmations.

Conclusions

The WLFI case highlights how on-chain movements, governance choices, and supply management operations can quickly influence the tokens price. A burn, even if limited compared to the total supply, along with potential buyback programs linked to fees, could have a temporary impact; however, sustainability will depend on real demand, transparency of on-chain data, and clear management of blacklist mechanisms.