Just a Question About WLEO

I just want to emphasize, I'm just asking a question. I am not implying anything specific by asking this. After all ...

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

Here's my question:

Q: How do we know LeoFinance was not directly responsible for minting the excess WLEO liquidity?

Again, I'm not making an accusation. It's just a question. And if there's no evidence going to this question, that's not proof of anything. Being unable to prove a negative is not proof.

It's just a light-hearted question. But if there's proof, that'd be wonderful. If there's not, then so be it.

Also, as a consequence of the implication I'm not making, it's possible that even if (again if) LeoFinance was responsible (which I'm just saying, hypothetically), this doesn't directly imply there was intent to defraud.