Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Coinkite 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 the summary
“drain more than $100 million in bitcoin from thousands of addresses over roughly five years”
reviewerThefts occurred over roughly five yearsSources place the thefts from July 30, 2026; the five-year span is the time the vulnerability existed, not the theft period. The page body itself says so.Proposed correction (not yet applied)drain more than $100 million in bitcoin from thousands of addresses in waves beginning July 30, 2026, after the defect had existed for roughly five years
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Prior Warning Allegedly Dismissed and Attribution to CTO Peter Gray
“Coinkite has not publicly confirmed or denied the identification of "switck" as Gray in the sources reviewed.”
reviewerHacker attribution: the thief or switck/Gray linkNot independently checked in the time available; the page already frames these as unadjudicated allegations.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: 2026 Seed-Generation Entropy Vulnerability
“Mk2 and Mk3 devices running firmware versions 4.0.1 through 4.1.9 were affected”
reviewerCoinkite advisory lists Mk2 and Mk3 as 4.0.1-4.1.9Coinkite's own listing as reported names Mk3; Mk2 inclusion comes from third-party analysis. Did not fetch the advisory directly. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Scale of Losses
“other analyses, including figures attributed to TRM Labs, put the cumulative total nearer to 1,816 BTC across more than 5,200 addresses, equivalent to over $114 million”
reviewerFigures attributed to TRM Labs put total near 1,816 BTC across 5,200+ addresses, over $114MBTC and address counts match; TRM states about $116M rather than $114M (a different date's value is plausible), and the tally is Galaxy's.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Scale of Losses
“On July 30, 2026, an attacker drained 1,196 Bitcoin addresses in 41 minutes, taking approximately 1,082.65 BTC (about $70.2 million at the time)”
reviewerAttacker drained 1,196 addresses in 41 minutes, 1,082.65 BTC (~$70.2M) on July 30Matches The Hacker News. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Coinkite's Response and Remediation
“The company released emergency firmware for all affected Coldcard models on July 31, 2026, according to The Hacker News”
reviewerEmergency firmware released July 31, 2026Confirmed. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Litigation and Legal Exposure
“A proposed class action against Coinkite Inc., CEO Rodolfo Novak and CTO Peter D. Gray was issued in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on September 11, 2026 (court file CV-26-00018158, as reported).”
reviewerOntario class action issued Sept 11, 2026, file CV-26-00018158, defendants, uncertified statusConsistent with the secondary source; no court record independently checked.