CoinDesk reports that Sun Zhenyu has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump family's crypto venture, accusing it of freezing his WLFI tokens and stripping his governance rights. The Tron founder filed suit Tuesday in California against World Freedom Finance and Twitter, alleging the project froze his holdings, revoked his voting power, and threatened to permanently wipe out his assets without prior notice, explanation, or any avenue for appeal. In a post on X, Sun said the decision left him "no choice" but to sue, adding he does not believe U.S. President Donald Trump "would tolerate" the alleged conduct if he knew about it. The case pits one of crypto's most polarizing investors against one of the sector's most politically connected projects. Sun became the largest single holder of WLFI after spending $75 million to accumulate the token by the end of 2024. The dispute traces back to September last year, when the World Freedom Alliance was reportedly blacklisted and Sun was said to have moved part of his position—a step that could have breached his investment terms. Sun denied any intent to sell. "I only want to be treated the same as all other early investors who received tokens—no more, no less," he said Tuesday. Decrypt said it contacted both Sun and World Liberty Financial for comment. The conflict surfaced publicly earlier this month after Sun alleged World Liberty embedded a hidden backdoor in the WLFI smart contract, enabling token freezes without notice or recourse. He called the project's leadership "bad actors," accusing it of treating the crypto community like a personal ATM. World Liberty rejected the claims as unfounded. Sun also opposed a governance proposal that would introduce a two-year cliff and vesting schedule, arguing that frozen tokens prevented him from voting while holders faced the risk of indefinite lockups if they did not accept the changes. Legal and compliance experts told Decrypt the dispute may hinge on the gap between how WLFI was marketed and what its smart contract actually allows. Yuriy Brisov, a partner at Digital & Analogue Partners, said that when a token is sold as decentralized ownership but administrators retain unilateral confiscation powers, its legal defensibility "plummets." "Hiding functions within bytecode is not equivalent to disclosure," he said, adding that U.S. and EU consumer-protection standards require "clear and conspicuous" disclosure in plain language that a reasonable investor would read before buying. Julius Chu, a lawyer and co-chair of the Hong Kong Web3 Association, said onchain use of anti-money-laundering and sanctions controls should be transparent, rules-based, and applied consistently, rather than selectively targeting individual controversial whales. He said the key question is whether the freeze reflects a genuine law-enforcement or policy rationale, or centralized discretion inside a product marketed as DeFi. Chu added WLFI could defend its actions as contractual, risk-based compliance measures rather than arbitrary punishment. Alex Chandar, a partner at the IGNOS Legal Alliance, said a court may examine whether investors were treated fairly and whether governance rights could be altered unilaterally after a triggering event. Brisov said WLFI faces the same legal standards as other issuers, and identified three primary risk fronts: private civil suits; state attorneys general with consumer-fraud authority operating outside federal political processes, particularly in New York and California; and non-U.S. regulators who decide whether the token can be marketed locally. WLFI was trading around $0.08, down nearly 76% from its September all-time high of $0.33, according to CoinGecko data.