Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Arcadia Finance v1 against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
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 section: v1 vs v2 Distinction and Subsequent Exploit History
“Renascence Labs (June 2024)”
reviewerRenascence Labs audited v2 in June 2024Official audit page gives Q1 2024 for the v2 codebase audit.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Renascence Labs (Q1 2024)
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Losses and On-Chain Fund Movement
“Total confirmed losses from the July 10, 2023 exploit amounted to $459,030.44 across two chains”
reviewerPer-chain loss split ($123,758 Ethereum, $335,271 Optimism) and 179-180 ETH to Tornado CashThe post-mortem was blocked. Press gives about $455K, so $459,030 is plausible but unchecked. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: July 2023 Exploit: Reentrancy Vulnerability
“The Arcadia team confirmed the attack approximately two hours after PeckShield's initial alert”
reviewerPeckShield first identified the vulnerability and the team confirmed it about two hours laterThe two-hour interval is unchecked. The team disputed PeckShield's preliminary report, and the page does not mention this.
partially supported
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: v1 vs v2 Distinction and Subsequent Exploit History
“Sherlock (Q1 2024, focused on lending-v2 and accounts-v2)”
reviewerSherlock Q1 2024 audit was focused on lending-v2 and accounts-v2Date matches; the scope detail was not confirmed. - #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Arcadia Finance issues 24-hour on-chain ultimatum: return 90% of stolen funds and keep 10% as white-hat bounty with no legal pursuit, or face a 10% public bounty for information leading to identification and arrest. Attacker does not respond.”
reviewerTeam's ultimatum offered a 90/10 split and the 24-hour ultimatum was dated 2023-07-11A 24-hour ultimatum is confirmed; the 90/10 terms and the exact date were not verified in the sources I could read. - #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“AAA token drops 46%.”
reviewer2025 exploit: 840 ETH bridged via Across, AAA token drops 46%, approx $2.5M (later $3.6M)Most of the entry is supported. The 46% AAA figure was not verified. Other outlets, such as CertiK and The Block, put the total at about $3.5M. - #9[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: v1 vs v2 Distinction and Subsequent Exploit History
“The pattern of repeated critical vulnerabilities across both v1 and v2 codebases indicates systemic weaknesses in the protocol's security review and threat-modelling processes.”
reviewerOpinion that repeated exploits indicate systemic weaknesses in security reviewThis is editorial inference, not a sourced fact. The Pashov miss was by an external auditor. The wording is not neutral.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Background
“A single audit of the complete v1 codebase was conducted by Nethermind in Q4 2022 through Q1 2023”
reviewerNethermind audited complete v1 codebase Q4 2022 to Q1 2023Confirmed by the official audit page. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“Attacker funds fresh wallet via Tornado Cash on Ethereum at 10:58 PM UTC in preparation for a new exploit targeting Arcadia Finance v2 Rebalancer contract on Base.”
reviewerAttacker funded via Tornado Cash at 10:58 PM UTC on 2025-07-14Confirmed. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: v1 vs v2 Distinction and Subsequent Exploit History
“A Pashov Group audit had previously reviewed the vulnerable function but closed the issue internally without escalation, concluding it could not be exploited.”
reviewerPashov reviewed the vulnerable function but closed the issue internallyConfirmed.