Anonymous account attacks Alvise Pérez before European elections

Anonymous account targets Alvise Pérez one week before the vote

One week before the European elections, an anonymous Twitter account began posting a series of tweets against Luis Alvise Pérez. These were not isolated complaints: they detailed the annual accounts of one of his companies, funds raised through the "Gobierno Dimisión" merchandise store, Bitcoin donations, and a lifestyle inconsistent with someone claiming not to live off politics. The operation did not seem improvised. And the timing was certainly not accidental.

The account gives no respite: from company accounts to the Gran Vía penthouse

The trail of messages is long—the account itself refers to a thread of 26 tweets—and unfolds in layers. First, a warning that it would be a shame to publish the annual accounts of one of the companies belonging to the leader of Se Acabó La Fiesta (SALF) to demonstrate how the money raised in the merchandising store had been squandered. Then, the most serious accusation: that Pérez allegedly received Bitcoin donations from an account linked to a fraud exceeding €30 million. All this, according to the account, comes with a fundamental question repeated like a hammer: who is really behind him?

The tone does not improve when it moves to assets. He is attributed luxury cars, a penthouse on Gran Vía, restaurants, and frequent partner changes that could not be sustained by his declared income. A final message, dirtier than the previous ones, reproduces what supposedly people who know him say: that he is lazy and a drunkard. That part provides no data, but makes clear that the attack is not seeking to convince, but to erode.

Are Bitcoin donations for a campaign legal?

This is where the issue stops being a Twitter feud and enters the legal realm. The account claims that receiving Bitcoin donations for an electoral campaign is illegal and points directly to Article 126.1 of the LOREG (General Electoral System Organic Law), which regulates how and from whom contributions to a party can be accepted. With this reference, it warns that it "would be a shame" if someone filed a complaint with the Electoral Board or a denunciation with the Prosecutor's Office for illegal financing.

It is worth being precise: according to the debate, no such complaints have been filed. They are threats made by an anonymous account without signature or editorial responsibility. But the framework invoked is not invented, which is why the message is more uncomfortable than a simple insult.

The "financial scam" at the racetrack

The penultimate front is a conference at the Madrid Racecourse. According to the accusation, Pérez allegedly participated in an event without disclosing who was behind it, and behind it would be Madeira Investment Club, a group that the CNMV (National Securities Market Commission) has classified as a "financial scam." Here the line of argument changes direction: it is no longer about dubious money coming in, but public image lent to a business of questionable solvency.

The conclusion of the reasoning is the most ideological: that all this is done by deceiving voters while selling them a neutrality that, again according to the account, neither exists nor is true. At this point, accounting is no longer debated; narrative is.

Who is behind it: the war within the right

The obvious question is whose hand is firing. In the same forum where the issue bounces around, hypotheses cross without any dominating. Some argue that Alvise himself is leaking information to feed his martyr role and close ranks. Others suggest the account serves Vox's interests, and Pérez himself has stated in an interview that two officials from Abascal's party are behind it. The account has also implicated Macarena Olona, who has counterattacked. It is a soap opera of services, indeed.

The disconcerting fact is that at this stage the calendar works against everyone: if the goal was to damage SALF, it was done one week before voting; and if the goal was to reinforce it, it was done in the clumsiest way possible. Few read this leak as the work of an amateur.

Lifestyle and the raffle response

Amid the noise appears the least flashy and most cited figure: a payment of nearly €7,000 from, according to the account, someone who funds conspiracy websites. From there, the debate splits. One current reads the episode as proof that SALF is just another product of the system it claims to fight, financed by people with very specific interests. Another responds that none of this is proven and that the account has not shown a single document.

And then there is the protagonist's own response: Alvise has announced he will raffle his salary among those who vote for him. In the context of accusations about money and assets, the gesture has an obvious reading. For some, it shows he does not need the office to live; for others, it is the cheapest way to cover up a weekend of uncomfortable questions that no one has yet taken to court.