← Blur Financereviewed 2026-10-16 · 20 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Blur 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.
disputed 3unverifiable 4link rot 2partially supported 1confirmed 105 corrections pending · 0 applied
disputed
3 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 section: Protocol Overview
“The protocol underwent a smart contract security audit by Dedaub in June 2022 for its v1.0 release, which identified two high-severity issues that were reported as resolved prior to launch.”
reviewerDedaub audited Blur Finance's smart contract in June 2022 for its v1.0 release, finding two high-severity issues reported as resolved prior to launchThis is the same name collision the page's own Disambiguation section warns about: Dedaub's audit naming convention uses the slug 'blur-finance' for its client Blur, the NFT marketplace (blur.io), not for the unrelated BNB Chain/Polygon yield aggregator that rug-pulled in August 2022. The cited audit report describes NFT exchange/order-matching contracts, not a PancakeSwap yield aggregator, and predates the NFT marketplace's October 2022 launch exactly as an audit should. No evidence was found that the rug-pulled 'Blur Finance' (BLR token) protocol was ever audited by Dedaub or anyone else.Proposed correction (not yet applied)No independent smart contract security audit of the BLR yield-aggregator protocol by Dedaub has been found. The June 2022 Dedaub report cited for this claim audits an unrelated project, Blur's NFT Exchange v1.0 contracts — the same entity disambiguated elsewhere on this page as the separate NFT marketplace Blur (blur.io). - #17[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Scam Pattern and Red Flags
“The protocol's smart contract did receive a formal security audit from Dedaub in June 2022, which resolved two high-severity findings — a pattern sometimes used by fraudulent projects to establish false legitimacy.”
reviewerThe Dedaub audit (used as evidence of a 'pattern sometimes used by fraudulent projects to establish false legitimacy') resolved two high-severity findings for the Blur Finance protocolRepeats the same misattribution identified in sections[0]; grouped under the same defect_group. This is a doubly ironic error since the paragraph's own point is that audits can be used by scammers for false legitimacy, but the audit it cites belongs to a different, legitimate company entirely.Proposed correction (not yet applied)No evidence was found that the rug-pulled BLR yield-aggregator protocol received a Dedaub audit. The June 2022 Dedaub report cited elsewhere on this page for 'Blur Finance v1.0' in fact audits the unrelated NFT marketplace Blur's Exchange v1.0 contracts. - #18[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Dedaub completes a smart contract security audit of Blur Finance v1.0, identifying two high-severity issues (both reported as resolved).”
reviewerDedaub audit completed June 10, 2022, identifying two high-severity issues reported as resolved (timeline)Third occurrence of the same underlying misattribution; grouped with the sections[0] and sections[4] findings. The audit itself (two high-severity issues, resolved, dated June 10 2022) is accurately described — the error is attributing it to the wrong 'Blur.'Proposed correction (not yet applied)No evidence found of a Dedaub audit for the rug-pulled BLR protocol. The June 10, 2022 Dedaub report of this name audits the unrelated NFT marketplace Blur's Exchange v1.0 contracts, not the BNB Chain/Polygon yield aggregator covered in this investigation.
unverifiable
4 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“the protocol's smart contracts on both chains have since been formally flagged on BscScan and PolygonScan as rug pull addresses”
reviewerBlur Finance's smart contracts on BscScan and PolygonScan have been formally flagged as rug pull addressesCould not directly confirm the on-chain label text (e.g. 'Fake_Phishing438') because both explorers return 403 to automated fetches and the cited wayback snapshots are unreachable from this environment. The general claim that the incident was a rug pull is well corroborated by secondary reporting, but the specific explorer tag could not be independently verified. - #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence
“the contract creator address is labeled 'Fake_Phishing438' — a designation applied by BscScan to addresses confirmed to have engaged in phishing or fraud. The contract registered 1,789 total transactions, with token balance currently at 0 BNB.”
reviewerBscScan contract creator address is labeled 'Fake_Phishing438'; BNB Chain contract has 1,789 total transactions and 0 BNB balance; Polygon contract has 103 total transactions and 0 POL balance; Polygon contract created July 7, 2022These are precise, checkable on-chain figures that this review could not independently verify due to block-explorer bot protection and an inaccessible wayback archive. Not disputed — simply unconfirmed. A human reviewer with normal browser access should spot-check these numbers directly. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flagging
“No published standalone investigation by ZachXBT specifically dedicated to Blur Finance has been located in public archives of his Mirror.xyz posts or Telegram channel as of the research date.”
reviewerNo published standalone investigation by ZachXBT specifically dedicated to Blur Finance has been locatedThis is a negative claim (absence of a dedicated investigation) that this review did not attempt to exhaustively re-verify by searching Mirror.xyz/Telegram archives directly; treated as a reasonable hedge rather than a checkable positive assertion. - #12[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Scam Pattern and Red Flags
“Hacken's post-incident analysis described the project as using social media marketing to create hype before the exit.”
reviewerHacken's post-incident analysis described the project as using social media marketing to create hype before the exitThe specific attribution to Hacken's analysis could not be confirmed because the underlying article is inaccessible (see separate link_rot finding on the citation itself); the general claim is plausible given secondary coverage describing aggressive marketing, but the source-specific wording is unverifiable.
link rot
2 claimsA cited source no longer resolves or no longer says what the page attributes to it.
- #13[link rot][awaiting moderator]in section: Scam Pattern and Red Flags
“https://hackenproof.com/blog/industry-news/the-rug-pull-from-blur-finance”
reviewerCitation URL for the Hacken rug-pull articleThe page's sources_used entry for this same URL already records archive_status 'unarchivable' and archive_error 'error:no-request', corroborating that this link was already known to be dead/unarchivable at save time. No live replacement could be confirmed, so removal rather than replacement is proposed. - #14[link rot][awaiting moderator]in the cited sources
“https://hackenproof.com/blog/industry-news/the-rug-pull-from-blur-finance”
reviewerCitation URL for the Hacken source in sources_used listSame dead URL appears in sources_used; grouped with the sections[4] finding under the same defect_group.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #20[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Disambiguation: Blur Finance vs. Blur NFT Marketplace
“The NFT marketplace Blur has undergone separate audits by Dedaub (including a January 2023 audit of its BlurExchange governance contracts and a July 2023 audit of Exchange V2), has venture capital backing, and operates an entirely different business model centered on professional NFT trading.”
reviewerThe Blur NFT marketplace has undergone a January 2023 Dedaub audit of its BlurExchange governance contracts and a July 2023 audit of Exchange V2, and has venture capital backingThe January 2023 governance audit and VC-backing claims are confirmed. A 'July 2023 audit of Exchange V2' by Dedaub could not be located; known Dedaub Blur audits found are v1.0 and v1.1 (June 2022), a re-audit (October 21, 2022), and the delta audit (January 20, 2023) — no July 2023 entry turned up in searches of Dedaub's audit naming pattern. This specific sub-claim is unverified, though not necessarily false.
confirmed
10 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“developers allegedly executed a textbook rug pull, withdrawing approximately $600,000 from user-deposited funds”
reviewerDevelopers withdrew approximately $600,000 from user-deposited funds in August 2022Figure and characterization are well supported by CoinDesk and corroborated by CryptoSlate, IBTimes, TronWeekly and Hacken coverage. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Rug Pull — August 2022
“The BLR token — which had reached an all-time high of approximately $0.06 to $0.07 on August 4, 2022”
reviewerBLR token had an all-time high of approximately $0.06 to $0.07 on August 4, 2022Range of $0.06-$0.07 and the Aug 4 date are consistent across CoinDesk, IBTimes and TronWeekly. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Rug Pull — August 2022
“At the time of the rug pull, the protocol had approximately 754–756 token holders on BNB Chain.”
reviewerThe protocol had approximately 754-756 token holders on BNB Chain at the time of the rug pullRange is reasonably supported, though one source (CryptoSlate) reports a lower figure (733) not reflected in the stated range; this is a minor discrepancy, not a material error. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: On-Chain Evidence
“The contract was created on July 7, 2022, giving the protocol a lifespan of approximately 34 days before the alleged exit.”
reviewerThe Polygon contract was created on July 7, 2022, giving the protocol a lifespan of approximately 34 days before the alleged exitJuly 7 to August 9-10 is consistent with ~33-34 days; multiple sources confirm the July 7 creation date. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flagging
“On-chain investigator ZachXBT, who is widely cited in crypto security reporting, commented on the Blur Finance incident in the context of investor education, stating that users should 'educate yourself about the [crypto] space' and that 'if it sounds too good to be true it most likely is' — remarks reported by the International Business Times in connection with the Blur Finance collapse.”
reviewerZachXBT commented, stating users should 'educate yourself about the [crypto] space' and 'if it sounds too good to be true it most likely is', as reported by IBTimesAccurately quoted and correctly attributed to IBTimes specifically, not CoinDesk. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flagging
“Security researcher Adam0658 was also credited with providing intelligence to PeckShield that contributed to identifying the incident.”
reviewerSecurity researcher Adam0658 was credited with providing intelligence to PeckShieldDirectly confirmed via the embedded PeckShield post quoted in the CoinDesk article. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flagging
“The scam was noted alongside contemporaneous rug pulls including Dragoma (Polygon) and Teddy Doge, which followed similar operational patterns of aggressive marketing, unrealistic APY promises, and sudden developer disappearance.”
reviewerThe scam was noted alongside contemporaneous rug pulls including Dragoma (Polygon) and Teddy DogeConfirmed via TronWeekly and CryptoSlate, which both discuss Dragoma and/or Teddy Doge as similar contemporaneous incidents. - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Scam Pattern and Red Flags
“ICOholder noted a 0% verification rate for all four listed team members”
reviewerICOholder noted a 0% verification rate for all four listed team membersDirectly confirmed by ICOholder's live page. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Scam Pattern and Red Flags
“annualized yield promises of approximately 4,000%, which are characteristic of Ponzi-adjacent yield farming schemes”
reviewerAnnualized yield promises of approximately 4,000%Confirmed by two independent sources, though not among the sources actually cited in this section — the page could strengthen this citation. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Disambiguation: Blur Finance vs. Blur NFT Marketplace
“Blur Finance (BLR) is a distinct and unrelated entity from Blur (blur.io), the NFT marketplace that launched in October 2022 and issues its own BLUR governance token.”
reviewerBlur Finance (BLR) is a distinct and unrelated entity from Blur (blur.io), the NFT marketplace launched October 2022Independently confirmed via general search: Blur (blur.io) is a separate NFT marketplace that launched October 19, 2022 with a BLUR token, confirmed as unrelated to the BNB Chain/Polygon yield-aggregator rug pull.
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.