Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read AzukiDAO 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
2 claimsThe 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 timeline
“2023-07-04”
reviewerBlockSec MetaSleuth publicly disclosed the exploit on July 4, 2023DL News (cited by the page) was published July 3 and already cites MetaSleuth. The July 4 date is not supported. I did not verify the Dedaub tweet date.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2023-07-03 - #2[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Smart Contract Exploit — Signature Replay Vulnerability
“The exploit was publicly disclosed on July 4, 2023 via BlockSec's MetaSleuth tool.”
reviewerExploit disclosure date in the exploit sectionSame error as the timeline entry.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The exploit was publicly disclosed on July 3, 2023 via BlockSec's MetaSleuth tool.
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Background and Formation
“the BEAN governance token contract had been deployed only two days before the first governance vote was proposed”
reviewerBEAN contract deployed two days before the first governance voteThe cited CoinDesk article does not say this. Other cited sources were not checked in time. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT Flagging — Zagabond and Prior Project History
“ZachXBT's on-chain analysis alleged Zagabond extracted approximately $3 million across the three projects.”
reviewerZachXBT publicly alleged Zagabond rug pulled three projects and extracted about $3 millionNot checked in the time available. CoinDesk does not mention ZachXBT. The page itself says no ZachXBT post about AzukiDAO is verified, so the summary's 'central to the community grievances' wording is an overstatement.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Background and Formation
“AzukiDAO comprised approximately 72 to 74 members at formation”
reviewerDAO had 72 to 74 members72 is supported. The upper bound of 74 was not located in the sources I read.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #3[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“resulting in the theft of approximately 35 ETH ($68,000)”
reviewerAbout 35 ETH (about $68,000) stolen by two attackers, claim contract pausedAmount, two attackers and the pause are confirmed. I did not check the attacker addresses or the 34.47/0.614 ETH split. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Governance Legitimacy and BEAN Token Concerns
“of the 36 votes cast on the 20,000 ETH reclamation proposal, approximately 40 percent of affirmative votes came from a single wallet holder”
reviewer36 votes on the proposal, nearly 40 percent of affirmative votes from one holder; 88 percent supportMatches CoinDesk.