Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Crema Finance 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.
unverifiable
3 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Background and Risk Context
“The exploit was described by some researchers as 'the fourth serious breach' of the protocol, though independent confirmation of prior incidents with specific loss amounts was not found in the sources reviewed for this investigation.”
reviewerExploit was described as 'the fourth serious breach' of the protocolNo attributable source found; the page itself hedges this. Unattributed 'some researchers' is weak. - #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flags
“ZachXBT, an independent on-chain investigator known for tracking crypto exploits and fraud, flagged Crema Finance in the context of the July 2022 exploit and its aftermath.”
reviewerZachXBT flagged Crema FinanceThe cited CoinDesk article does not mention ZachXBT, and no source for a ZachXBT flag was found. Community-discussion claims are likewise unsourced. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Audit and Re-Launch
“DeFiLlama data indicated a TVL of approximately $124,000 and near-zero daily trading volume as of mid-2025”
reviewerProtocol TVL about $124,000 mid-2025 per DeFiLlamaDeFiLlama blocked the fetch; not scored.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Negotiated Fund Recovery and White-Hat Bounty
“Total recovered value was approximately $7.1 million, representing roughly 81 percent of the stolen funds.”
reviewerAttacker returned about $7.1M in totalThe sources give about $8M returned, not $7.1M; the same $7.1M appears in the summary. The 81% is derived, not sourced. Kept amount and token quantities are confirmed.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“On July 2, 2022, the protocol suffered a critical exploit in which an attacker used a fake tick account and flash loans to drain approximately $8.78 million from multiple liquidity pools.”
reviewerExploit on July 2, 2022 drained about $8.78 million via fake tick account and Solend flash loansDate, amount and method consistently reported across multiple outlets. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: July 2022 Flash Loan Exploit
“The protocol's total value locked dropped from over $12 million on the day before the attack to approximately $3 million by the following business day.”
reviewerTVL fell from over $12M to about $3MMatches reporting. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Negotiated Fund Recovery and White-Hat Bounty
“The attacker agreed to retain 45,455 SOL (worth approximately $1.68 million at the time of the deal) as a white-hat bounty and returned the remainder across four separate transactions: 6,064 ETH and 23,967.9 SOL.”
reviewerAttacker kept 45,455 SOL (~$1.68M) and returned 6,064 ETH and 23,967.9 SOL in four transactionsMatches CoinDesk. Timeline dates the agreement July 6; CoinDesk reports it as announced July 7, so the timeline split is plausible but the July 6 date was not independently verified.