← Abracadabra Finance (MIM Stablecoin)reviewed 2026-11-02 · 9 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Abracadabra Finance (MIM Stablecoin) 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
1 claimThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #1[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“The protocol has suffered four significant security exploits between January 2024 and October 2025”
reviewerThe protocol has suffered four significant exploits between January 2024 and October 2025The page body itself lists three exploits and calls the October 2025 one the third. The summary count of four is internally inconsistent and unsupported.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The protocol has suffered three significant security exploits between January 2024 and October 2025
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Founder Background and the Wonderland Scandal
“As of mid-June 2026, MIM's market capitalization was approximately $90.57 million”
reviewerMIM market capitalization was approximately $90.57 million in mid-June 2026The cited CryptoNews article gives no market cap. The other cited sources were not checked for it. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: June 2026 Dual Depeg Events
“The first event occurred on June 8, 2026, when MIM dropped to approximately $0.8065.”
reviewerFirst depeg June 8, 2026 to $0.8065 and second June 12 to $0.8776 (10.93% in 24h), per The Crypto TimesThe primary source returned 403. Cointelegraph reports a deeper mid-June low (74 cents), so the page's low may understate it. Not scored.
stale
2 claimsThe claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.
- #2[stale][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“As of mid-June 2026, MIM was trading approximately 18% below its $1 peg, with the protocol relying on a 140 million SPELL token incentive program to attract liquidity providers.”
reviewerAs of mid-June 2026 MIM was about 18% below peg with the SPELL program as the protocol's reliance; this has been supersededTrue as of June 15 but superseded by a deeper depeg and the suspension of incentives nine days later.Proposed correction (not yet applied)As of mid-June 2026, MIM was trading approximately 18% below its $1 peg, with the protocol relying on a 140 million SPELL token incentive program to attract liquidity providers; by June 24-25, 2026 MIM had fallen to about $0.50 and the protocol had suspended direct incentives and Curve bribes. - #3[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Founder Background and the Wonderland Scandal
“The protocol has acknowledged that SPELL token incentives represent its primary tool for rebuilding liquidity, though the effectiveness of this mechanism given MIM's current confidence deficit remains uncertain.”
reviewerSPELL incentives are the primary tool and their effectiveness is uncertain; superseded by reports they failed and were suspendedThe uncertainty framing is outdated; the outcome is now reported.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The protocol had acknowledged that SPELL token incentives represented its primary tool for rebuilding liquidity; however, Crypto Briefing reported on June 24, 2026 that neither the SPELL program nor the $100,000 Curve injection stopped the depeg, and the protocol subsequently suspended direct incentives.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: March 2025 Exploit ($13M)
“approximately $13 million (6,262 ETH) drained from the protocol”
reviewerMarch 2025 exploit drained approximately $13 million (6,262 ETH)Date, amount, bounty, GMX quote and Guardian Audits confirmed. The ETH count differs trivially from CoinDesk. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: October 2025 Exploit ($1.7M)
“purchased 1.79 million MIM from the open market to offset the minted supply and maintain the stablecoin's peg”
reviewerAbracadabra purchased 1.79 million MIM from the open market after the October 2025 exploitThe 1.79M MIM figure is the amount extracted. The Block does not give the buyback amount or the 395 ETH figure. Both the buyback and the cumulative $21M are broadly supported.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Stablecoin Mechanism and Systemic Risk
“Between January 2024 and October 2025, Abracadabra Finance suffered at least three confirmed exploits resulting in cumulative losses exceeding $21 million.”
reviewerCumulative losses over $21 million across three exploitsMatches The Block; also consistent with the Sept 2026 Coin Turk estimate of about $21M bad debt. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Response to June 2026 Depeg
“Beginning June 18, 2026, Abracadabra planned to distribute 140 million SPELL tokens to liquidity providers in the MIM pool”
reviewer$100,000 injected into Curve pool; 140M SPELL distribution starting June 18; liquidity is top operational priorityConfirmed. A later Crypto Briefing piece confirms the June 18 program was announced.
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.