Meteora Airdrop Sparks Controversy Over Trump-Linked Wallets

According to data from SolScan and Arkham Intelligence, two wallets explicitly linked to the Official Melania Meme entity—melania-liquidity1.sol and melania-liquidity2.sol—received $784,200 and $454,724 worth of MET tokens respectively during Thursday’s airdrop, totaling $1.23 million. Both wallets immediately transferred their newly acquired tokens to different addresses, a common practice that complicates tracking. More significantly, three wallets associated with President Trump’s meme coin team were among the top five recipients of the entire airdrop, collectively receiving $4.2 million in MET tokens. These addresses subsequently deposited their allocations to the OKX exchange, effectively removing them from public on-chain scrutiny.

The timing of these distributions proved particularly problematic for Meteora’s leadership. Just one hour before the MELANIA-linked wallets received their tokens, Meteora co-lead Soju had publicly asserted that LIBRA launch wallets would not receive any MET allocation. This statement created an expectation of rigorous vetting that the actual distribution failed to meet. The incident sparked immediate backlash on social media platform X, where users questioned why Hayden Davis, CEO of Kelsier Ventures which helped launch the MELANIA token, would receive MET tokens through associated wallets.

The controversial airdrop distributions occur against a dark legal backdrop. Just one day before the MET token launch, investors filed new court documents naming former Meteora co-founder Benjamin Chow as the alleged mastermind behind a “scam coin” operation involving at least 15 tokens. The filing specifically identified high-profile failures including MELANIA, LIBRA, and ENRON tokens—all of which collapsed dramatically shortly after their launches. According to the legal documents, Chow operated these ventures separately from Meteora’s legitimate automated market maker business while working under the Meteora name.

The MELANIA token’s history provides crucial context for the current controversy. Following its promotion by former First Lady Melania Trump in January, the Solana-based meme coin surged to a near $7 billion market capitalization before collapsing 99% to approximately $80 million in subsequent months. When Argentine President Javier Milei promoted a similarly failed meme coin in February, on-chain analytics firm Bubblemaps traced its origins back to the MELANIA operation, resulting in a fraud and racketeering class action lawsuit. Chow resigned from his leadership role at Meteora soon after these events, with company co-founder Meow citing his “lack of judgment and care.”

Meteora’s leadership had publicly emphasized their efforts to ensure a fair distribution. Co-lead Soju stated the project worked with on-chain investigator Dethective and anti-scam tool Rugcheck to “make sure no tokens go towards malicious bad actors.” Despite these assurances, the Trump-linked wallets clearly slipped through whatever vetting process was implemented. Neither Meteora, Soju, Dethective, nor Rugcheck responded to requests for comment regarding how these specific wallets qualified for the airdrop despite their controversial connections.

The crypto community’s reaction to the airdrop has been sharply divided. While some recipients praised the smooth claims process and the substantial value of their allocations—with MET now ranking as the 269th largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization at $263.2 million according to CoinGecko—others expressed significant concern about the project’s associations. Kyle Trimble, head of business development at crypto research firm Delphi Digital, commented cryptically on X about the ongoing lawsuit, suggesting it might “disappear [real quick] innit,” reflecting broader skepticism about accountability in the space.

The fundamental contradiction between Meteora’s stated commitment to excluding bad actors and the reality of millions flowing to wallets connected to allegedly fraudulent operations raises serious questions about governance and due diligence in decentralized finance. As MET establishes itself in the market, these controversies threaten to undermine confidence in both the token and the platform’s long-term viability, particularly while legal proceedings against former leadership continue to unfold.