#MEMEAct The virtual asset market has witnessed the emergence of a new category of tokens, known as meme coins, which, unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, are created for humorous, community purposes, or for speculation. Frequently inspired by internet characters, public figures, or cultural events, they can achieve wide adoption due to massive engagement on social media, resulting in rapid appreciation peaks based on the asset's popularity rather than economic fundamentals.
One of the most notable current cases is the creation of TrumpCoin, a meme coin launched by the President of the United States in the context of his inauguration. The announcement occurred during a celebration dedicated to the virtual asset sector, attracting wide publicity and significant appreciation in a short period. However, the concentration of token ownership in certain addresses, as well as the direct link of the asset to the presidential figure, raises concerns about conflicts of interest and regulatory implications. It is worth noting that the TrumpCoin meme was launched just a few days before the Republican was inaugurated.
The relationship between political personalities and virtual assets raises debates about the legality and ethics of using public image for financial purposes, especially considering the potential for influence in the market and fundraising. In this context, it becomes relevant to analyze the implications of the eventual creation and promotion of a meme coin linked to the image of a Brazilian president, in this case, inaugurated.
Article 85 of the Constitution states that the acts of the President of the Republic that attack the Constitution itself and, in particular, against the existence of the Union, the free exercise of the three Powers, the Public Ministry, and the constitutional Powers of the federative units, the exercise of political, individual, and social rights, the internal security of the Country, the integrity in administration, the budget law, and compliance with laws and judicial decisions constitute crimes of responsibility. Law No. 1,079/1950, in turn, details the crimes of responsibility and establishes the conduct that constitutes such infractions, as well as the procedure for their processing and judgment.
Violation of the principle of impersonality
The use of the presidential image for the promotion of financial assets would violate the principle of impersonality (Article 37, CF), since the position must be exercised in favor of the public interest and not for self-promotion or speculation purposes. Furthermore, the initiative could constitute an attack on integrity in administration, under Article 85, V, of the Constitution and Article 9 of Law No. 1,079/1950, if there was an intention to obtain direct or indirect financial benefits.
This would also characterize an attack on internal security (Article 85, IV, CF), since the introduction of an asset linked to the figure of the head of the Executive could cause distortions in the financial market, volatility, and speculation, as well as open precedents for fraudulent practices, such as price manipulation. If the meme coin were promoted with public resources, there would be a violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Law and Article 10 of Law No. 1,079/1950, which provides for the ordering of expenses without legal authorization as a crime of responsibility. Additionally, the creation and promotion of a presidential meme coin could constitute a crime of responsibility for attacking the budget law (Article 85, VI, CF) and in Article 10 of Law No. 1,079/1950, if public resources were allocated without legal provision or without due transparency.
The creation of a meme coin associated with the presidential image transcends merely legal issues and exposes the need for a deeper debate about the ethical and institutional limits of public management in the face of new technologies. The intersection of digital innovation and governmental responsibility requires caution, under penalty of compromising trust in institutions and distorting republican principles.