← AlphaPoreviewed 2026-11-01 · 8 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read AlphaPo 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
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment
“The company itself has not published a post-incident security audit or remediation report in any publicly accessible venue.”
reviewerThe page asserts the company has not published a post-incident audit and no regulatory/civil action existsAbsence claim; I found nothing either way. Also unsupported: 'without multi-signature controls' in the same section is inference beyond the cited sources. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence
“Funds were then split across 67 newly created Ethereum addresses and bridged to Bitcoin via the Avalanche Bridge”
reviewerBridge route and laundering via Avalanche Bridge, 67 addresses, 3,252 ETHNot in the BleepingComputer article (which mentions Bitget/Bybit laundering attempts instead). I did not read the Merkle Science source, so this is not scored.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #1[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“U.S. Treasury OFAC sanctions Sinbad cryptocurrency mixer, the service used to launder AlphaPo proceeds, specifically citing its role in laundering Lazarus Group hack proceeds.”
reviewerOFAC sanctioned Sinbad on 2023-11-29 for laundering Lazarus proceedsDate and sanction basis are correct. OFAC's named examples were Horizon, Axie and Atomic Wallet; AlphaPo laundering via Sinbad rests on analyst reporting, not OFAC. - #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“FBI warns cryptocurrency exchanges that DPRK may attempt to liquidate approximately 1,580 Bitcoin linked to the combined AlphaPo, CoinsPaid, and Atomic Wallet thefts.”
reviewerFBI warned exchanges about ~1,580 BTC on 2023-08-23The 1,580 BTC warning appears to be part of the 2023-08-22 release, not a separate 2023-08-23 event (23 Aug is the news coverage date). Entry duplicates timeline[5]; I did not mark it disputed because I could not read the primary release. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Background
“markets itself as a Curacao-based gateway enabling over 30 digital currencies to be accepted and converted to more than 23 fiat currencies”
reviewerAlphaPo markets itself as Curacao-basedCurrency counts and Panama incorporation confirmed. The Curacao self-description is not on the homepage (may be elsewhere), and sits oddly beside Panama incorporation.citedalphapo.net/
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Lazarus Attribution
“On August 22, 2023, the FBI formally attributed the AlphaPo theft to DPRK TraderTraitor-affiliated actors in an official press release identifying cryptocurrency funds stolen by North Korea.”
reviewerFBI attributed the AlphaPo theft to TraderTraitor in the Aug 22 2023 releaseSupported through secondary coverage quoting the release. Note the FBI release itself reportedly gives the wrong month for the theft. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Lazarus Attribution
“BleepingComputer noted at the time of initial reporting that it could not independently confirm Lazarus involvement beyond ZachXBT's analysis”
reviewerBleepingComputer could not independently confirm Lazarus involvement; ZachXBT cited distinct on-chain fingerprintMatches the article. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: The Hack
“The initial estimate of losses was approximately $23 million, covering assets including over 6 million USDT, 108,000 USDC, 100.2 million FTN (Fasttoken), 430,000 TFL (TrueFil), 2,500 ETH, and 1,700 DAI.”
reviewerInitial loss estimate of $23M with token breakdown, raised to $60M by ZachXBTMatches BleepingComputer.
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.