Today, my legal team attended a hearing in California federal court to oppose World Liberty Financial's attempt to forcefully push our dispute into a secret arbitration process and keep the documents out of public view. We argued with reason and advocated that this case should be tried in open court - the court supported our position. This is a major victory: The judge ruled that all of my personal claims will remain in open court for trial. The judge also rejected World Liberty's claim that all company related claims should be arbitrated and ordered both parties to negotiate and determine which claims should remain in court and which should be submitted for arbitration. This is a significant victory. World Liberty attempted to push this case into a secret room, but the court said: 'No way.'. Token holders have the right to see how these projects treat those who trust them. I believe that if World Liberty's actions could withstand scrutiny, they would not be so desperately trying to cover them up. I won't give up until the community receives the transparency it deserves. For friends who are just starting to pay attention to this controversy, let me briefly introduce the background: I am one of the earliest and largest investors in World Liberty. I invested $45 million in exchange for WLFI tokens because I believe in the project's vision of 'bringing decentralized finance to the public'. But as I accused in the lawsuit, after my $45 million investment helped them turn a struggling token sale into a successful fundraising of $550 million, World Liberty secretly implanted a backdoor in the WLFI smart contract, granting itself the unilateral right to freeze, restrict, or destroy any holder's token without notice or due process. The indictment further alleges that World Liberty used this power against me, illegally seized my property (i.e. my WLFI token), and threatened criminal transfer when I attempted to exercise my legal rights. My lawsuit claims amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. After filing the lawsuit, I immediately obtained a court order prohibiting World Liberty from destroying, damaging, redistributing, or permanently disposing of any of my tokens in any other way. This order is necessary - as I have accused in my lawsuit, World Liberty not only threatened to destroy my tokens, but also ensured that it has the unilateral power to fulfill this threat. I now understand that World Liberty has implanted the same backdoor feature in its USD1 stablecoin. In my opinion, USD1 users should understand that World Liberty has granted itself the technical capability to freeze or destroy user assets at any time - and as I have accused in the lawsuit, they have demonstrated their willingness to use these features against WLFI holders. I am not the only victim of the World Liberty fraud scheme accused in the lawsuit. Although I have no authority to speak on behalf of others about their experiences without their consent, others have privately expressed to me that they believe they have also been violated by World Liberty and are only concerned about publicly coming forward to file a lawsuit. I understand their concerns. As I have accused in the lawsuit, World Liberty has proven that they will retaliate against the challenger. Based on my personal experience dealing with bad actors in this industry, I also want to give investors a piece of advice. Prior to this controversy, I was defrauded by ARIA - the company took away approximately $500 million in collateral assets that supported the TUSD stablecoin. While ARIA is insolvent and sitting on billions of dollars in misappropriated funds, its agent Vincent Chok is launching a new stablecoin called FDUSD through his company First Digital Trust. The stablecoin ultimately collapsed in confidence, lost its anchor, and its trading pair was taken down by Binance Exchange. That experience taught me to scrutinize my investment projects more carefully, and it is also one of the reasons why I am deeply concerned about World Liberty today. In my opinion, there are sufficient reasons to remain vigilant about both WLFI and USD1. My claim against World Liberty amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that they have the ability to fulfill such a large-scale judgment. The market value of USD1 is reported to be $4 billion, but that is user money. That is the collateral asset that should support stablecoins and cannot be used to pay court judgments. Apart from this portion of collateral assets, I have not seen any indication that World Liberty has enough capital to cover hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments. And this is just my own claim. As mentioned earlier, to my knowledge, others may also file similar lawsuits. Beyond these potential claims, World Liberty's own actions give me even more reason to doubt whether they can fulfill their obligations. According to public reports, World Liberty has deposited approximately 5 billion of its own issued WLFI tokens as collateral into lending platform Dolomite, whose co-founder is World Liberty's own Chief Technology Officer. According to reports, this quantity is close to half of its treasury holdings, accounting for approximately 5% of the total token supply. Through this arrangement, World Liberty reportedly lent out at least $75 million in stablecoins, including its own issued USD1. As I pointed out in the lawsuit, industry analysts have directly compared this type of revolving lending to the leverage operations that led to SBF's massive fraud in FTX. In addition, there are issues with the management of World Liberty. As alleged in my lawsuit, Chase Herro, co-founder of World Liberty, had previously created another DeFi protocol called Dough Finance, which claimed to have been hacked and user assets stolen. But some investors have filed a lawsuit, accusing the so-called hacker attack of non-existent, and instead Mr. Herro himself of cashing out platform assets and transferring them to his own wallet. According to public reports, the vast majority of these funds are still missing. Public reports also document that many of the same individuals who participated in Dough Finance back then are now operating World Liberty. All of these factors - my claim for substantial damages, potential claims from other uncontested parties, borrowing arrangements on Dolomite, and Dough Finance's lawsuit - make me seriously doubt whether World Liberty and USD1 would have enough funds to fulfill judgments, repay debts, or provide investors with full compensation in the event of a run. I think investors should ask whether World Liberty and USD1 have sufficient resources to cover all their potential obligations. Based on the public information I have reviewed, I have no confidence in this. I urge investors to conduct due diligence on their own and maintain extreme caution.