← 7zarcreviewed 2026-11-02 · 11 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read 7zarc against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
Read this first
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
disputed
2 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #4[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2022-01-01”
reviewerTimeline: wallet cluster went dormant 2022-01-01 following the alleged exit scamJan 1 2022 is a placeholder; it also precedes the 2022-02-04 NFT launch, so it cannot be 'following' an exit scam. Source gives only the year. Proposed value is 2022 (year only); the schema needs a stored-value replacement, so the editor may prefer removal.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2022-01-01 is unsupported; remove the entry or use a year-only date of 2022 - #5[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2026-09-01”
reviewerTimeline: 7zarc cluster reactivated on 2026-09-01Source supports month precision only; the 1st of the month is invented.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2026-09
unverifiable
3 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“A snapshot for Raid Party 2.0 was announced for November 15, 2022; the project's activity subsequently collapsed and 7zarc-linked wallets reportedly went dormant around this period.”
reviewerTimeline: Raid Party 2.0 snapshot announced for Nov 15, 2022 and 7zarc wallets went dormant around thenThe cited PANews piece does not mention the snapshot or link dormancy to that date. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Raidparty Project Overview
“NFT price floor data shows the collection declined approximately 99.94% from mint price to a current floor of roughly 0.00048 ETH”
reviewerFloor declined ~99.94% to ~0.00048 ETH; $CFTI tokenPage is JS-rendered so floor figure was unreadable; this is a live metric that also shifts over time. - #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Source Assessment: ZachXBT's Investigation
“He funds his work through community donations.”
reviewerZachXBT funds his work through community donations; prior work corroborated by law enforcement and Reuters/BloombergNot checked against the cited Wikipedia and CryptoSlate pages in this pass.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“The wallets went dormant in 2022 and reactivated in September 2026”
reviewerThe wallets went dormant in 2022 and reactivated in September 2026Sources describe the person vanishing from public view, not on-chain wallet dormancy. The page turns a statement about the individual into a wallet-activity claim. - #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Behavior: Dormancy and Reactivation
“According to ZachXBT's published analysis, the wallet cluster associated with 7zarc went dormant in 2022 and remained inactive for approximately four years before reactivating in September 2026.”
reviewerWallet cluster went dormant ~4 years and was moved on reactivation (per ZachXBT's analysis)Same mischaracterization: no source attributes wallet-level dormancy to ZachXBT's analysis. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Raidparty Project Overview
“launched its NFT collection on February 4, 2022, with a mint price of 0.8 ETH per token across 5,292 items”
reviewerNFT collection launched Feb 4, 2022 at 0.8 ETH mint price across 5,292 itemsDate and 5,292 supply confirmed; 0.8 ETH mint price could not be read.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“allegedly having received 4,870 ETH (approximately $15 million) traceable to the Raidparty project's alleged $70 million exit scam”
reviewerZachXBT alleged 7zarc wallets received 4,870 ETH (~$15M) traceable to Raidparty's alleged $70M exit scam, then moved to multiple CEX deposit addressesConsistently reported across PANews, KuCoin, Phemex and CryptoActu, all relaying one ZachXBT post. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Background and Identity
“One reporting outlet, PANews, described 7zarc as a member of a sneaker-reselling community”
reviewerPANews described 7zarc as a member of a sneaker-reselling communityMatches. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Response and Current Status
“No statement from 7zarc, no law enforcement announcement, and no exchange freeze or seizure order was reported in any source reviewed.”
reviewerNo response from 7zarc, no law enforcement action or freeze reportedTrue as of mid-September; page is now about 6 weeks old and I found no later reporting either way.
How this fits together. The reviewer reads the published page and its cited sources and records one finding per claim. A human moderator decides whether each proposed correction is applied; those decisions, and the score changes they cause, appear in the audit log. Earlier review runs are not shown here; only the latest reflects the page as it stands.