He was on the phone. He said what he was going to do.
En Argentina, un informe técnico de la Policía Federal ha puesto en tensión el relato oficial del presidente Javier Milei sobre su participación en la promoción de la criptomoneda $LIBRA, un activo digital que colapsó en febrero de 2025 y dejó a inversores con pérdidas cuantiosas. La evidencia acumulada en el expediente judicial sugiere que el token no era público ni accesible en el momento en que Milei lo difundió, y que existía un vínculo comunicacional con el lobista que articuló el proyecto. Como ocurre con frecuencia en la historia humana, la distancia entre lo que un líder declara y lo que los registros revelan se convierte en el verdadero campo de disputa.
- El informe pericial de la Policía Federal establece que $LIBRA no estaba listada en ningún exchange centralizado cuando Milei publicó su código de contrato, contradiciendo directamente su afirmación de que se trataba de una criptomoneda 'pública'.
- Un único actor —la billetera fundacional controlada por el equipo de Hayden Davis— tenía control absoluto sobre los mil millones de tokens creados apenas 23 minutos antes del tuit presidencial, lo que sugiere una estructura diseñada para el beneficio de pocos.
- Los registros telefónicos forenses revelan que Milei mantuvo contacto con el lobista Mauricio Novelli en los minutos inmediatamente anteriores y posteriores a su publicación, mientras Novelli se encontraba en Texas reunido con Davis.
- Davis declaró públicamente que los representantes de Milei estaban presentes cuando se coordinó la acción y que 'él dijo lo que iba a hacer', estrechando aún más el margen del relato presidencial.
- El expediente judicial continúa creciendo con evidencia técnica y comunicacional que desafía la versión oficial, mientras los inversores que perdieron su dinero aguardan que la justicia determine responsabilidades.
Un informe técnico preliminar de la unidad de cibercrimen de la Policía Federal argentina ha ingresado al expediente judicial sobre $LIBRA con conclusiones que contradicen la versión pública del presidente Javier Milei. Según el análisis, cuando Milei publicó el código de contrato del token el 14 de febrero de 2025 a las 19:01 horas, la criptomoneda no existía en ninguna plataforma de intercambio centralizada. Además, un único actor —la billetera fundacional del equipo de Hayden Davis— concentraba el control absoluto sobre los mil millones de unidades creadas apenas 23 minutos antes.
Milei había caracterizado $LIBRA como una criptomoneda 'pública' y no ofreció explicación sobre cómo obtuvo el código alfanumérico de 44 caracteres necesario para acceder a un token que no estaba listado en ningún lado. Llamó 'traders de volatilidad' a quienes perdieron dinero, insinuando que solo alguien con conocimiento especializado podría haber comprado el activo. El informe policial desmonta esa lógica: Ripio, la única plataforma local que eventualmente listó $LIBRA, no lo habilitó para su compra hasta las 21:40, más de dos horas después del tuit. Un experto en criptomonedas ya había declarado ante la Cámara de Diputados que el código no estaba disponible en internet en el momento de la publicación presidencial.
Lo que agrava el cuadro es la evidencia comunicacional. El análisis forense del teléfono del lobista Mauricio Novelli —quien habría llevado la propuesta al Presidente— muestra que Milei estuvo en contacto telefónico con él en los minutos previos y posteriores al tuit. Ese día, Novelli se encontraba en Texas junto a Hayden Davis, quien luego declaró que los representantes de Milei estaban presentes durante la coordinación de la operación. La acumulación de registros técnicos y comunicacionales continúa reduciendo el espacio entre el relato oficial y lo que la investigación va revelando.
A technical report from Argentina's Federal Police cybercrime unit has surfaced evidence that contradicts President Javier Milei's public explanation for promoting the $LIBRA cryptocurrency, a digital asset that collapsed under suspicion of fraud and left investors with substantial losses.
The preliminary analysis, now part of the judicial file, establishes that when Milei posted the token's contract code on social media at 7:01 p.m. on February 14, 2025, the cryptocurrency did not exist on any centralized exchange platform. More significantly, the report confirms that a single actor—identified in the investigation as a foundational wallet controlled by Hayden Davis's team—held absolute primary control over the one billion $LIBRA units that had been created just 23 minutes earlier, at 6:38 p.m. that same day.
When the scheme unraveled following massive fund withdrawals and the immediate collapse of the token's value, Milei characterized it in an interview as a cryptocurrency that "was public." He offered no explanation for how he obtained the 44-character alphanumeric contract code needed to purchase a token that had not been listed anywhere and had been created less than half an hour before his promotion of it. In that same interview, he referred to those who lost money as "volatility traders" and suggested that only someone with deep specialized knowledge and extensive familiarity with cryptocurrency could have purchased the asset he had just introduced to the public.
The Federal Police report directly contradicts this framing. It notes that at the moment of the token's publication, it was not listed on any centralized exchange, meaning users who wanted to buy it initially depended entirely on information released by the project itself or on transfers from the initial address that held the available tokens for distribution. Ripio, the only local platform that eventually listed $LIBRA, did not make it available for purchase until 9:40 p.m.—more than two hours after Milei's tweet. Cryptocurrency expert Fernando Molina had already testified before the Chamber of Deputies that the contract code was not available anywhere on the internet at 7:01 p.m., when the President posted it.
The police analysis is preliminary, but it joins other evidence accumulating in the judicial file that strains Milei's account of how much he knew about the project beforehand. A forensic examination of the phone belonging to Mauricio Novelli, the local lobbyist who reportedly brought the proposal to the President, revealed that Milei was in telephone contact with him in the minutes immediately before and after posting the tweet. On that day, Novelli was in Texas meeting with Hayden Davis. Davis later stated in an interview that he had not hacked anything and that Milei's representatives were present in the room with him. "He said what he was going to do," Davis said. "He was on the phone."
The accumulation of technical findings and communications records has begun to narrow the space between Milei's public statements and what the evidence suggests actually occurred. The investigation continues to examine the precise nature of his involvement and the extent of his prior knowledge of the $LIBRA structure and its vulnerabilities.
Notable Quotes
He said what he was going to do. He was on the phone.— Hayden Davis, regarding Milei's coordination with his team
At the moment of publication, the token was not listed on any centralized exchange, meaning users depended entirely on information released by the project or transfers from the initial address.— Federal Police cybercrime report
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that the token wasn't on an exchange when he tweeted it?
Because it means there was no legitimate way for ordinary people to buy it except through the exact mechanism he provided—the contract code. He's claiming he just shared public information, but the information itself was the only door in.
So he had to know it wasn't public?
The phone records suggest coordination. He was talking to Novelli minutes before and after the tweet. Novelli was physically with Davis in Texas. The timing is very tight.
What does "absolute primary control" mean in practical terms?
One person or entity could move all the money, freeze it, drain it, change the rules. There was no distributed governance, no safety mechanism. It was entirely dependent on Davis's good faith.
Did Milei claim he didn't know Davis?
He didn't claim ignorance exactly. He said it was public information he was sharing. But the evidence suggests he was on the phone coordinating the announcement in real time.
What's the human impact here?
People bought something that collapsed within hours. They lost real money based on the President's endorsement of an asset he apparently knew was controlled by a single actor with no safeguards.
Is this enough to charge him?
That's for the courts. But the gap between what he said and what the evidence shows keeps getting wider.