Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Cork 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.
stale
1 claimThe claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.
- #4[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment
“(1) funds locked in paused contracts with no confirmed withdrawal timeline;”
reviewerUsers' funds locked in paused contracts with no confirmed withdrawal timelineThe page implies depositors remain locked out; the project reports most remaining assets were withdrawn.Proposed correction (not yet applied)(1) funds in the exploited market were lost, while Cork reported processing over $21 million in withdrawals from the four unaffected markets;
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Cork exploiter resurfaces and launders approximately 4,520 ETH (~$11 million) through Tornado Cash. Also donates 10 ETH to Roman Storm's legal defense fund. Sends on-chain messages criticizing audit firms, stating 'Sherlock missed it.'”
reviewerExploiter's Tornado Cash laundering, 10 ETH donation and 'Sherlock missed it' messages all occurred on 2025-06-25Tornado Cash and donation are June 25, but the audit-criticism messages were about June 19-20, so the single dated entry merges two events. - #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Security & Audits
“Three firms — Sherlock, Runtime Verification, and Quantstamp — explicitly excluded the CorkHook contract from their defined scope”
reviewerThree audit firms explicitly excluded CorkHook from scopeThe scope exclusion rests largely on Sherlock's own contested account in the sources I read. I did not check the other cited sources for Runtime Verification and Quantstamp. The summary repeats it as fact. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“no user compensation plan has been publicly confirmed”
reviewerNo user compensation plan has been publicly confirmedNo public plan was found, but Cork says private remuneration plans were shared with affected users.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security & Audits
“The exploit, which occurred on May 28, 2025 at approximately 11:39 UTC”
reviewerExploit occurred May 28, 2025 at about 11:39 UTC extracting 3,761 wstETHMatches the project's own post-mortem as shown in search results. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Risk Assessment
“Stolen funds (approximately 4,530.6 ETH converted from 3,761.878 wstETH)”
reviewerStolen 3,761.878 wstETH converted to about 4,530 ETHConsistent at the level of rounding.