The Risks of Governance Tokens as Collateral

On April 9, CoinDesk reported that World Liberty Financial, the Trump family-backed crypto venture, had pledged 5B WLFI governance tokens on Dolomite, a lending protocol, and borrowed $75M in stablecoins. The trade pushed Dolomite's USD1 lending pool to near-100% utilization, locking ordinary depositors out of their funds. WLFI now represents roughly 55% of Dolomite's entire supplied assets.

This is a case study in how insider relationships, illiquid governance tokens, and permissionless lending pools can be combined to extract real value while leaving the risk with depositors who had no say in the arrangement.

How the Trade Works

WLFI is a governance token with no economic rights. It grants voting power over platform updates, nothing more. Its total supply is 100B tokens, of which roughly 31.8B circulate. The token trades thinly, with limited market depth relative to the size of any meaningful position.

World Liberty Financial deposited 5B WLFI tokens as collateral on Dolomite and borrowed 65.4M USD1 (WLFI's own stablecoin) plus 10.3M USDC. The activity escalated over several weeks. On February 20, 890M WLFI went in, borrowing 20M USD1. Another 1.1B WLFI followed on March 24. In April, another 3B WLFI entered through a Gnosis Safe proxy wallet. More than $40M was subsequently sent to Coinbase Prime.

The collateral position is nominally valued at roughly $440M. But nominal value means nothing when the token cannot be liquidated at scale without destroying its own price.

The Conflict

Dolomite co-founder Corey Caplan is an adviser to World Liberty Financial. WLFI officially launched its lending market as a product built on Dolomite's contracts. The borrower, the platform, and the advisory relationship all trace back to the same circle.

WLFI has described itself as an "anchor borrower" generating yield for other users. In practice, the trade did the opposite: it consumed nearly all available liquidity in the USD1 pool, pushing utilization to 100% and preventing depositors from withdrawing. Depositors who lent USD1 expecting on-demand liquidity found their funds locked until the single large borrower repays.

The Liquidation Problem

WLFI trades at approximately $0.08, down >80% from its peak and 15% since the Dolomite story broke. The liquidation threshold sits near 75% loan-to-value. If the token drops further and Dolomite's liquidation engine triggers, the forced sale of billions of WLFI into a market with minimal depth would crash the price before the collateral could be unwound. The resulting bad debt would fall on the same retail depositors who are already locked out.

This is the fundamental problem with using illiquid governance tokens as lending collateral: the collateral's value depends on not being sold. The moment a liquidation event forces a sale, the value evaporates, and the protocol is left holding worthless tokens while depositors absorb the loss.

The Fallout

Justin Sun, who pledged $75M to WLFI and holds a substantial token position, publicly accused the project of treating users like a "personal ATM" and claimed it had secretly installed backdoor controls to freeze investor funds. WLFI responded by threatening legal action and freezing 595M of Sun's unlocked tokens, worth approximately $107M.

WLFI has since repaid $25M, but approximately $50M remains outstanding. On April 13, the project minted 25M fresh USD1 and burned 3M, a net $22M increase in USD1 circulation during the controversy.

What This Tells Us

Permissionless lending is one of DeFi's most powerful features. Anyone can create a pool, anyone can deposit, anyone can borrow. But "permissionless" does not mean "riskless." When a protocol's largest borrower is also connected to its advisory structure, and the collateral is a token that cannot withstand a liquidation event, the permissionless design becomes a vehicle for extracting liquidity from depositors who have no visibility into the counterparty risk they are taking.

The mechanics here are not new. The pattern of borrowing against illiquid, self-issued tokens has a direct precedent in Alameda Research's use of FTT on FTX. The setting is different. The structure is the same: an insider entity uses a token it controls as collateral to borrow real assets, and the depositors who fund the loan have no practical way to assess or exit the risk until it is too late.

DeFi's transparency advantage is supposed to prevent exactly this. Every on-chain transaction is visible. The WLFI deposits, the Dolomite utilization spike, the Coinbase transfers are all public. But visibility is not the same as protection. Depositors could see the trade happening and still could not withdraw their funds. Transparency without exit rights is just a window into your own losses.

• yoUSD ($39.3M TVL) yields 4.72% (7d), down from 5.09% the prior week. Morpho Sentora PYUSD (25.53%) and Sentora RLUSD (21.69%) remain the top allocations, with Aave sGHO steady at 20.90%. Merkl boost at 12%.

• yoETH (6,734 ETH TVL) posted 2.97% (7d), roughly flat. A new allocation to Lido Earn ETH at 13.67% with a strong 4.70% yield. Monad exposure via Morpho Steakhouse Prime ETH holds at 10.97% with 5.23% yield. Merkl boost at 8%.

• yoBTC (134 cbBTC TVL) yields 1.14% (7d), flat. TVL ticked up from 124.52 to 134 cbBTC. Across WBTC remains dominant at 48.37%. Merkl boost at 8%.

• yoEUR (1.21M EURC TVL) posted 2.39% (7d), down from 2.66%. Allocations shifted: Morpho Steakhouse Prime Instant EURCV rose to the top at 34.39%, displacing Morpho kpk EURC (33.55%). A new Morpho wstETH/EURC position at 2.33% was added. Merkl boost at 8%.

New UX feature is live on YO!

Morpho’s fixed rate protocol has a new name 🕛

If you have been keeping up with YO, we have set up a forum for discussing a proposal around the Resolv situation. 👇