Trump is building America’s crypto future — but why does WLFI seem to be the biggest winner? Is the Crypto Strategic Reserve for the country or just for his portfolio?

World Liberty Financial’s deep ties to reserve assets

For months, whispers of a U.S. crypto strategic reserve floated around Washington, but now, President Donald Trump has made it official. On Mar. 2, he directed the President’s Working Group on Digital Assets to establish a reserve comprising key cryptocurrencies. 

Initially, the inclusion of Ripple (XRP), Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA) stirred excitement among supporters, yet the glaring absence of Bitcoin (BTC) raised eyebrows. 

Within an hour, Trump clarified that BTC and Ethereum (ETH) would be “at the heart of the reserve,” settling some concerns — but not all.

Now, attention is shifting to an entirely different issue: the financial entanglements surrounding World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a DeFi platform tied to the Trump family. 

As of Mar. 5, World Liberty Financial (WLFI) holds approximately $92 million in crypto assets. Ethereum makes up $6 million (6.5%), while Lido Staked Ethereum (stETH) accounts for $11 million (12%), and Wrapped Bitcoin (wBTC) holds $5 million (5.4%).

While neither stETH nor wBTC are officially part of the U.S. strategic reserve, their price movements closely track Ethereum and Bitcoin, respectively. This means that, in practical terms, WLFI has $22 million — roughly 23.9% of its total holdings — tied to assets that directly or indirectly align with the newly established reserve.

At its peak, Ethereum held the largest share of WLFI’s portfolio, reaching $266 million (64.4%), while Wrapped Bitcoin accounted for $67 million (16.2%). 

This overlap raises a fundamental question: is this initiative a genuine step toward securing America’s digital future, or a thinly veiled maneuver to pump WLFI and Trump-linked crypto holdings? Let’s explore.

The Trump family’s crypto stake

When President Trump announced the reserve, the internet erupted — not in celebration, but in speculation. Accusations of monetizing the presidency are nothing new for Trump, but this time, the concerns run deeper.

Critics argue that the reserve is a calculated move to drive up the value of assets tied to Trump and his family. The numbers seem to support this theory — Trump and his affiliates hold a 60% stake in WLFI. If demand for ETH and other assets surges, so does the value of WLFI’s holdings, creating a financial windfall for them.

The Trump Organization insists there’s no conflict of interest. They say the president has stepped away from business dealings, just as he did during his first term.

Trump’s children now handle operations, an independent ethics lawyer oversees the company, and an outside firm manages his investments, according to Reuters.

Watchdogs argue that these measures are purely cosmetic, pointing out that similar actions did little to separate his business empire from his political power between 2017 and 2021.

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump’s personal financial involvement in the crypto space has only grown. Just days before his inauguration, the Official Trump (TRUMP) meme coin launched, quickly skyrocketing to a $15 billion market cap within 48 hours.

Not to be outdone, Melania Trump introduced her own token, Official Melania Meme (MELANIA), which saw billions in liquidity almost instantly.

Watchdog groups have raised alarms, noting that Trump-affiliated companies owned 80% of the total supply at launch, meaning the vast majority of profits flowed directly to those closest to him.

Peter Schiff, a longtime critic of both crypto and Trump, openly questioned why Trump manipulating XRP, SOL, and ADA was any different from government officials enriching their families through financial kickbacks.

Meanwhile, political strategist Rick Wilson called the strategic reserve the “greatest single financial scam of all eternity,” predicting an inevitable collapse.

Bitcoin maxis push back on Trump’s decision

For a president who marketed himself as “pro-crypto,” Trump likely expected broad industry support for his new reserve. Instead, he’s facing backlash — not from anti-crypto critics, but from some of his former allies who once supported his return to the White House.

Among the most vocal critics are the Winklevoss twins, Tyler and Cameron, who each donated $1 million to Trump’s election campaign. While they supported the idea of a U.S. crypto reserve, they were caught off guard by the inclusion of assets like XRP, Solana, and Cardano.

“I have nothing against XRP, SOL, or ADA,” Tyler Winklevoss wrote, “but I do not think they are suitable for a Strategic Reserve. Only one digital asset in the world right now meets the bar, and that digital asset is Bitcoin.”

He acknowledged that his exchange, Gemini, lists many of these assets but drew a firm line when it came to national reserves. “An asset needs to be hard money, a proven store of value like gold.”

His twin brother, Cameron Winklevoss, echoed his sentiments, stating that Bitcoin is the only asset worthy of a place in a national reserve. 

“Maybe Ethereum,” he admitted, referring to its role as “digital oil” alongside Bitcoin’s “digital gold. It’s possible other assets could make the grade in the future, but it’s a very high bar.” 

He added that the only exception would be if the government acquired them through seizures or forfeitures, not through direct purchases as part of a reserve strategy.

The pushback didn’t stop there. Veteran trader Peter Brandt — a staunch Trump supporter — was blunt in his reaction, stating, “That Trump suggests that ETH and XRP should be part of a reserve has GREATLY destroyed his credibility with me.”

He framed it as a matter of competence, accusing the president of failing to grasp the difference between speculative assets and true monetary reserves.

Others in the industry shared similar frustrations. Jeff Park, Head of Alpha Strategies at Bitwise, which manages one of the world’s largest crypto index funds, didn’t mince words.

“Listen, I represent a premier crypto firm, and I’m telling you that Bitcoin should be the only strategic reserve asset. What else do you need to know?”

Meanwhile, podcaster and Bitcoin advocate Peter McCormack took an even harsher stance, dismissing Trump’s choice of assets: “There is nothing strategically gained by holding a basket of shitcoins which will fall in value against Bitcoin.”

Experts weigh in: Strategic move or power play?

Does the crypto strategic reserve genuinely position the U.S. at the forefront of digital assets, or is it a calculated effort to inflate Trump-affiliated holdings? To explore this question, crypto.news reached out to industry experts to break down the implications.

The inevitable impact on WLFI and other Trump-linked assets

When a government begins accumulating crypto assets as part of a national reserve, private holders of those assets, including WLFI — where Trump and his affiliates hold a controlling stake — naturally benefit.

Alexander Guseff, CEO of Tectum, views this less as a conspiracy and more as an expected market reaction.

“There’s no denying that when a sitting administration makes a direct bet on BTC and ETH, anyone holding those assets — including private entities like WLFI — stands to gain. That’s just how markets work. The real question isn’t whether insiders benefit (they obviously do), but how this reshapes institutional participation and regulatory influence in the long run.”

Arthur Tang, Partner & Board Director at IOST, offers a more critical perspective, arguing that the reserve’s structure gives Trump’s personal investments an undeniable advantage.

“Yes, it essentially creates a taxpayer-funded mechanism that directly benefits Trump’s crypto-related holdings. This raises serious conflict-of-interest concerns. But crypto markets offer radical transparency — every transaction is visible on-chain. While this doesn’t prevent manipulation, it does make it easier to expose.”

Slava Demchuk, CEO & Co-founder of AMLBot, warns that if the intent to “pump” WLFI or other Trump-linked holdings is confirmed, it could lead to legal scrutiny at the highest levels.

“This episode, with Trump as president, tweeting about the creation of the Crypto Reserve and mentioning specific crypto assets tied to Trump-affiliated businesses, could open the door for serious legal risks. If the intent to ‘pump’ WLFI or personal holdings is confirmed, it could trigger SEC or CFTC investigations for market manipulation or DOJ probes for corruption.”

From a legal standpoint, Demchuk sees this as a fine line between national strategy and potential misconduct.

“The Strategic Crypto Reserve isn’t inherently illegal, but it risks crossing into manipulation or corruption if designed to disproportionately enrich Trump or WLFI.”

Market manipulation concerns

One of the most alarming signals came just before Trump’s strategic reserve was announced. A trader made a $200 million bet on BTC and ETH using 50x leverage, a move that now seems suspiciously well-timed.

Guseff argues that this trade isn’t surprising, considering how financial markets have always been influenced by those with early access to policy decisions.

“When the most influential government on the planet starts accumulating crypto, we’re no longer just dealing with whales and institutions—sovereign entities are now part of the equation. That’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it legitimizes the space and paves the way for broader adoption. On the other, it raises the risk of market manipulation favoring insiders.”

Niko Demchuk, legal head at AMLBot, warns that if insider trading is involved, legal consequences could follow.

“If the reserve’s asset choices or timing leak to insiders — such as Trump affiliates or WLFI stakeholders — they could position trades to profit before public disclosure. That would create a two-tiered market where insiders benefit while retail investors face post-pump volatility. Under U.S. law, insiders benefiting from material nonpublic information could face civil or criminal liability.”

Tang sees both sides, acknowledging the unfair advantage but also highlighting crypto’s ability to expose it.

“Yes, it definitely creates information asymmetries and risks of insider trading. Crypto markets still lack proper insider trading definitions and regulations, making them vulnerable to abuse by politically connected individuals. However, the radical transparency of blockchain reveals these questionable transactions to everyone. If this had happened in traditional markets, we’d likely never have known about it.”

Regulatory independence or a stacked deck?

The appointment of David Sacks and Paul Atkins, both well-known crypto advocates, to lead digital asset policy has raised concerns that regulation will be shaped by insiders rather than neutral policymakers.

Trump’s supporters argue that this is no different from how previous administrations appointed industry-connected officials. However, others see it as a sign that crypto regulation will favor those with political ties.

Daria Morgen, Head of Research at Changelly, believes this bias is inevitable, regardless of who is in charge.

“Overall, the appointment of Sacks and Atkins was a positive one for the crypto market. Although they’re ‘biased,’ so was former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, who was staunchly anti-crypto.”

Guseff shares a similar view, arguing that financial policy has always been influenced by those with vested interests.

“Let’s be honest — regulatory independence is a myth. Every major financial policy in history has been shaped by those with skin in the game. Sacks and Atkins are crypto advocates, and their influence will ensure the industry isn’t suffocated by hostile regulation. But that doesn’t mean the playing field will be perfectly fair.”

Tang, however, warns that regulatory capture is a real concern, even in crypto.

“Appointing outspoken crypto advocates like Sacks and Atkins is a classic case of regulatory capture. But the big difference compared to traditional finance is transparency. In crypto, decisions and potential conflicts are immediately visible and subject to public scrutiny.”

A defining moment for crypto?

Beyond the immediate controversy, the long-term impact of Trump’s crypto reserve is still unfolding. Tang warns that government involvement often leads to selective market intervention.

“When governments accumulate assets, they gain the ability to influence price discovery, liquidity, and long-term valuation. That could bring more stability — or it could lead to selective intervention that benefits certain players over others.”

Demchuk points out that Trump’s direct stake in WLFI could create legal and ethical challenges down the road.

“The Ethics in Government Act and federal regulations prohibit public officials from using their office for private gain. Trump holds around 60% of WLFI, which holds the same assets mentioned in his public statements. This could create a conflict if the reserve disproportionately benefits his own assets.”

Guseff views this as a turning point.

“If the U.S. government is holding BTC, ETH, and even Solana, it’s no longer about whether crypto is here to stay — it’s about how deeply it will be integrated into financial and geopolitical strategy.”

Between accusations of self-enrichment, backlash from Bitcoin purists, and growing scepticism even among his own supporters, the plan seems to be raising more questions than confidence. 

Whether this is a visionary move or just another way to tilt the game in his favor, Trump has once again put himself at the center of the most explosive debate in crypto.