← 8ightDAOreviewed 2026-10-28 · 11 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read 8ightDAO 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.
unverifiable
4 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Treasury Drain — December 2021
“The EIGHT token lost over 75% of its value within 24 hours of the announcement and was down approximately 98% from its all-time high.”
reviewerToken lost over 75% in 24h and was down ~98% from ATHPrice figures not in any source I could read. - #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Background and Launch
“8ight Finance launched on the Harmony (ONE) blockchain around October 26, 2021, operating as a fork of OlympusDAO (OHM).”
reviewerLaunch on Harmony around October 26, 2021, as relief project for Snowdog victimsLaunch date (inferred from Twitter account creation), OHM-fork status and Snowdog link not supported by readable sources. Twuzy profile not fetched; it is a low-tier proxy. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Rug Pull Allegations vs. Hack Narrative
“ZachXBT has flagged this entity, though the specific nature and content of that flagging was not independently located in public records during this investigation.”
reviewerZachXBT has flagged this entityNo source cited or found. The page itself concedes it could not locate this; the sentence should probably be removed. - #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Indicators
“A community member identified the intermediate address, though further tracing was blocked by the mixer.”
reviewerTornado Cash intermediate address identified by a community member; no smart contract vulnerabilityIntermediate-address claim not found in fetched sources.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Treasury Drain — December 2021
“All funds were subsequently routed through Tornado Cash on Ethereum, rendering them effectively untraceable.”
reviewerAll funds were routed through Tornado Cash on EthereumTornado routing supported by rekt.news; 'all funds' and Ethereum chain not independently confirmed. Timeline[1] attributes Tornado to Web3 Is Going Great, which does not mention it. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Rug Pull Allegations vs. Hack Narrative
“was noted as a pattern consistent with serial fraud in the DeFi space”
reviewerUse of Tornado Cash is a technique associated with intentional theft; also no evidence of 'serial fraud'Page presents conditional speculation as a noted pattern; overstates rekt.news.
confirmed
5 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Treasury Drain — December 2021
“The stolen funds totaled approximately $1.75 million in stablecoins, including roughly 490,170 DAI, 378,417 DAI with 10,843 LP tokens, and 12,362 USDT, with an additional 868,587 DAI transferred between accounts.”
reviewerApproximately $1.75 million in stablecoins was drained from the treasury, with listed DAI/LP/USDT amountsFigures match the rekt.news transaction list. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Treasury Drain — December 2021
“According to the team's own statement: 'Two devs in the team has the key, they were sent through Facebook groups chat and Google Drive.'”
reviewerTeam said keys were sent via Facebook group chat and Google DriveSupported by two sources. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Rug Pull Allegations vs. Hack Narrative
“First, the project had falsely assured investors that a multi-signature wallet was in place when it was not”
reviewerProject falsely claimed a multisig was in placeSupported. rekt quotes also verified ('most basic of errors', 'If this was a planned event...'). - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Recovery Plan and Aftermath
“Following the treasury drain, the team proposed a recovery plan offering two options to the community”
reviewerRecovery plan with two options announced; $250,000 marketing funds; AVAXTimeline[2] date of 2021-12-07 also matches. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“rekt.news publishes full post-mortem, noting the absence of promised multi-sig, raising the possibility of intentional insider theft.”
reviewerTimeline: rekt.news post-mortem published 2021-12-08Date and content match.
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.