← Astrid Financereviewed 2026-11-02 · 8 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Astrid Finance 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.
- #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: October 2023 Smart Contract Exploit
“Assets drained comprised approximately 64.17 stETH (worth roughly $114,757), 39.16 rETH (roughly $76,328), and 20.0004 cbETH (roughly $37,637)”
reviewerApprox $228,000 stolen; per-asset amounts (64.17 stETH, 39.16 rETH, 20.0004 cbETH) and USD valuesTotal is consistent with independent sources; the per-token breakdown could not be read because the Medium source returned 403. - #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT Flag and Community Risk Signals
“Astrid Finance has been flagged by ZachXBT, the pseudonymous blockchain investigator known for documenting DeFi exploits and fund-flow tracing across the crypto ecosystem.”
reviewerAstrid has been flagged by ZachXBTThe page itself concedes the flag cannot be verified yet states it as fact in the heading and first sentence. No supporting source found. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Audit Accountability and Conflicting Statements
“Approximately one hour later, the team retracted that characterization and stated instead that the vulnerability had been 'missed' by both Astrid and its auditing team”
reviewerAstrid Finance initially blamed an auditor-recommended fix and retracted about one hour laterThe Binance Square URL title is consistent with the first statement; the retraction detail was not independently read. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Overview
“The protocol is distinct from AstridDAO, a separate Polkadot-ecosystem project with no known affiliation.”
reviewerAstrid Finance is distinct from AstridDAO, a Polkadot-ecosystem projectNo source cited or found for AstridDAO. The claim is a disambiguation and has low risk.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Status and Operational Risk
“As of available reporting through mid-2025, there is no confirmed evidence of a mainnet relaunch or public disclosure of new audit reports.”
reviewerAs of mid-2025 there is no governance activity, no new audits and no relaunch; contracts remain pausedA search found no relaunch or shutdown announcement, which is consistent with the claim. Claims about the absence of governance activity and documentation updates could not be checked.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: October 2023 Smart Contract Exploit
“The attacker address identified in post-mortem analysis is 0x792ec27874e1f614e757a1ae49d00ef5b2c73959, and the primary attack transaction hash is 0x8af9b5fb3e2e3df8659ffb2e0f0c1f4c90d5a80f4f6fccef143b823ce673fb60.”
reviewerExploit occurred October 28, 2023 via the withdraw function, attacker address and tx hash as stated, ~127 ETH lostAddress and hash match an independent post-mortem. The cited Neptune Mutual page was not readable (403). - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: October 2023 Smart Contract Exploit
“The attacker deployed a fake ERC-20 token, minted it in large quantities, and supplied it to the withdraw function to drain the pool's allowances of legitimate LSTs.”
reviewerRoot cause was unvalidated token address and amount parameters in withdraw, exploited with fake ERC-20 tokens, no flash loanMechanism matches. Page says one fake token while SolidityScan says three; immaterial. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Hacker Negotiation and Fund Recovery
“The attacker complied ahead of the deadline, returning approximately 102 ETH (worth approximately $182,000 at the time) of the roughly 127 ETH stolen.”
reviewerTeam's 20% bounty offer on-chain on Oct 29 with deadline Oct 31 8:00 UTC and legal threat; attacker returned 80% (~102 ETH, ~$182K) before the deadlineConfirmed via search results that summarise multiple outlets. The cited FXStreet page was blocked.
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.