← Agavereviewed 2026-10-16 · 21 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Agave 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
4 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“The protocol paused operations following the hack and formally closed down in March 2024 with no documented user compensation.”
reviewerThe protocol paused operations following the hack and formally closed down in March 2024 with no documented user compensationA documented compensation mechanism (GnosisDAO's GIP-34 reimbursement vote) did exist, contradicting the page's claim that there was 'no documented user compensation'. Payout amounts/eligibility for individual users were not publicly detailed, but a plan was announced and voted on.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The protocol paused operations following the hack and formally closed down in March 2024; a Gnosis DAO-approved reimbursement plan for affected Agave users (GIP-34) was enacted in April 2022. - #11[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Response and Closure
“No documented compensation plan for affected users was publicly announced.”
reviewerNo documented compensation plan for affected users was publicly announcedThis is the same underlying error as the summary's 'no documented user compensation' claim: a GnosisDAO-approved reimbursement plan for Agave users was in fact documented and voted on in April 2022.Proposed correction (not yet applied)A compensation plan for affected users was publicly announced: in April 2022 the Gnosis DAO community voted (GIP-34) to approve a reimbursement plan for the Agave community following the exploit, though the page does not document how individual payouts were calculated. - #12[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Response and Closure
“The protocol remained effectively dormant after the hack.”
reviewerThe protocol remained effectively dormant after the hackAgave redeployed on Gnosis Chain within weeks of the exploit following a protocol-level hard fork, and ran with multi-million-dollar TVL for roughly two more years before winding down in 2024; it was not dormant in the interim.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The protocol resumed operations in April 2022 after a Gnosis Chain hard fork intended to prevent repeat reentrancy attacks, and continued operating with several million dollars of total value locked until early 2024. - #14[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Response and Closure
“At the time of the formal closure announcement, the protocol's TVL had fallen to approximately $81,000, compared to peak levels prior to the exploit.”
reviewerAt the time of the formal closure announcement, the protocol's TVL had fallen to approximately $81,000The page appears to have substituted a current/recent TVL figure for the TVL at the time of the 2024 closure announcement; the two differ by roughly 30x.Proposed correction (not yet applied)At the time of the formal closure announcement, the protocol's TVL had fallen to approximately $2.66 million, compared to peak levels prior to the exploit.
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #13[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Response and Closure
“On approximately March 25, 2024, the Agave DAO formally announced its closure, directing token holders to a redemption portal at agavefinance.eth.limo/redeem/.”
reviewerOn approximately March 25, 2024, the Agave DAO formally announced its closure, directing token holders to a redemption portal at agavefinance.eth.limo/redeem/No independent news coverage or archived primary announcement of the 2024 closure or the specific redemption portal URL could be located, but the DefiLlama TVL cliff on exactly this date is circumstantially consistent with the claim. Marked unverifiable rather than disputed because no contradicting source was found either. - #21[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Agave DAO formally announces closure; redemption portal opened at agavefinance.eth.limo/redeem/ for AGVE token holders”
reviewerAgave DAO formally announced closure on 2024-03-25 with a redemption portal opened at agavefinance.eth.limo/redeem/ for AGVE token holdersSame underlying claim as the closure sentence in sections[2]; no primary announcement or redemption-portal confirmation could be independently located, though the DefiLlama TVL data is consistent with the date.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #10[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Response and Closure
“The protocol stated: 'Agave is currently investigating an exploit on the agave finance protocol. We will update you as soon as we know more.'”
reviewerAgave's official statement read: 'Agave is currently investigating an exploit on the agave finance protocol. We will update you as soon as we know more.'The substance of the statement (investigating, will update) is corroborated by CoinDesk's paraphrase, but the exact wording as a verbatim quote could not be independently verified against a primary tweet (X/Twitter was not accessible to this reviewer).
confirmed
14 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“Agave was a decentralized lending protocol on Gnosis Chain forked from Aave v2, developed by members of the 1Hive community.”
reviewerAgave was a decentralized lending protocol on Gnosis Chain forked from Aave v2, developed by members of the 1Hive communityConfirmed by 1Hive's own documentation and corroborated by independent coverage (CoinMarketCap, Agave's Notion docs). - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“On March 15, 2022, the protocol suffered a reentrancy exploit that drained approximately $5.5 million in user funds, part of a coordinated $11.7 million attack that simultaneously hit Hundred Finance.”
reviewerOn March 15, 2022, a reentrancy exploit drained approximately $5.5 million from Agave, part of a coordinated $11.7 million attack that simultaneously hit Hundred FinanceFigures and date independently confirmed across rekt.news, The Block, CoinDesk and ForkLog. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Reentrancy Exploit — March 2022
“On March 15, 2022, between approximately 11:25 and 11:28 AM UTC+1, an attacker exploited a reentrancy vulnerability in Agave's lending contracts on Gnosis Chain, draining approximately 2,116 ETH valued at roughly $5.5 million at the time.”
reviewerThe exploit occurred between approximately 11:25 and 11:28 AM UTC+1 on March 15, 2022, draining approximately 2,116 ETH valued at roughly $5.5 million, with the simultaneous Hundred Finance exploit adding $6.2 million for a combined $11.7 million, from attacker address 0x0a16a85be44627c10cee75db06b169c7bc76de2cTimestamp window, ETH amount, dollar value and attacker address all verified directly against rekt.news. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Reentrancy Exploit — March 2022
“Stolen assets included Wrapped ETH (WETH), Wrapped BTC (WBTC), Chainlink (LINK), USDC, Gnosis (GNO), and Wrapped xDAI (WXDAI).”
reviewerStolen assets included Wrapped ETH (WETH), Wrapped BTC (WBTC), Chainlink (LINK), USDC, Gnosis (GNO), and Wrapped xDAI (WXDAI)The asset list is not itemized by rekt.news or The Block directly, but is corroborated by Fortune's reported breakdown and other secondary coverage (ForkLog). - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Reentrancy Exploit — March 2022
“Within hours of the exploit, stolen funds were transferred to Tornado Cash for laundering.”
reviewerWithin hours of the exploit, stolen funds were transferred to Tornado Cash for launderingDirectly confirmed. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Reentrancy Exploit — March 2022
“The AGVE token dropped more than 20% in the immediate aftermath.”
reviewerThe AGVE token dropped more than 20% in the immediate aftermathDirectly confirmed by cited source. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Root Cause: Non-Standard Token Hooks on Gnosis Chain
“Official bridged tokens on Gnosis Chain are non-standard ERC-677 tokens that include a callAfterTransfer() hook, which triggers a callback to the receiving contract after every token transfer.”
reviewerThe root cause was non-standard ERC-677 bridged tokens with a callAfterTransfer() hook, exploited via flash loans, nested borrow calls and a closing liquidationCall; Agave lacked checks-effects-interactions/reentrancy-guard protectionsAn Immunefi analysis and a Fairyproof summary independently describe the bridged tokens as non-standard ERC-677/ERC667 tokens with a post-transfer hook, corroborating the ERC-677 characterization even though rekt.news itself does not use that exact label. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Root Cause: Non-Standard Token Hooks on Gnosis Chain
“Security researcher Mudit Gupta noted that Aave on mainnet actively screens tokens for reentrancy risk before listing them, a check that Agave did not perform on Gnosis Chain's bridged token set.”
reviewerSecurity researcher Mudit Gupta noted that Aave on mainnet actively screens tokens for reentrancy risk before listing them, a check Agave did not perform on Gnosis Chain's bridged tokensDirect quote confirmed against cited source. - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: User Impact and Victim Accounts
“One affected investor, known online as Shegenerates, reported losing over $225,000 in the attack.”
reviewerAn investor known as Shegenerates reported losing over $225,000 in the attack, discovered when the interest rate spiked to nearly 100%, and called DeFi 'still the Wild West'All details of this claim verified directly against the cited Fortune article. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Background and Team
“Agave was built by active members of the 1Hive community, a decentralized organization that also operates the Honeyswap decentralized exchange.”
reviewerAgave was built by members of the 1Hive community (which also operates Honeyswap), was a fork of Aave v2 on xDAI/Gnosis Chain with the AGVE governance token, and operated without a named, publicly identified teamCorroborated by 1Hive's own documentation and independent third-party descriptions of Honeyswap/1Hive/Agave relationships. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Background and Team
“The AGVE token reached an all-time high of approximately $1,466 before the exploit and the eventual protocol wind-down; as of 2025, the token trades at roughly $26–34, representing a decline of approximately 97–98% from its all-time high.”
reviewerThe AGVE token reached an all-time high of approximately $1,466 and traded at roughly $26-34 as of 2025, a decline of approximately 97-98% from its all-time highATH figure matches CoinGecko exactly; the 2025 price band and decline percentage are directionally and numerically consistent with current CoinGecko data. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Background and Team
“The protocol's GitHub organization is available at github.com/Agave-DAO.”
reviewerThe protocol's GitHub organization is available at github.com/Agave-DAOVerified the organization exists and is substantively related to the Agave lending protocol. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Laundering via Tornado Cash
“Approximately 2,116 ETH from the Agave portion of the exploit and 2,363 ETH from the Hundred Finance portion were sent through Tornado Cash, making on-chain tracing and fund recovery effectively impossible.”
reviewerApproximately 2,116 ETH from the Agave portion and 2,363 ETH from the Hundred Finance portion were sent through Tornado Cash, making tracing/recovery effectively impossible, with no law enforcement action, attacker identification, or asset recovery publicly reportedETH amounts match rekt.news exactly; no subsequent reporting of an arrest, attacker identification, or fund recovery for this specific exploit was found in current search results. - #20[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“Agave protocol launched on xDAI (Gnosis Chain) by the 1Hive community as a fork of Aave v2”
reviewerAgave protocol launched on xDAI (Gnosis Chain) in 2021 by the 1Hive community as a fork of Aave v2No source gives an exact launch date, but the 2021 year is consistent with DefiLlama's listing timestamp and general background sourcing; no contradicting date found.
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.