Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← Ethereum Classicreviewed 2026-10-16 · 24 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Ethereum Classic 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 3confirmed 125 corrections pending · 0 applied

disputed

3 claims

The reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.

  1. #9[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
    “It has suffered three documented 51% attacks totaling over $7M in double-spend losses (2019 and 2020)”
    reviewerSummary: ETC has suffered three documented 51% attacks totaling over $7M in double-spend losses (2019 and 2020)Internal inconsistency: the summary undercounts the number of attacks documented in the page's own sections (4, not 3) and the dollar total doesn't add up to 'over $7M' using the page's own cited figures ($1.1M + $5.6M = $6.7M).
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    It has suffered four documented 51% attacks totaling approximately $6.7M in double-spend losses (2019 and 2020)
  2. #12[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Hashrate Security — Current
    “NiceHash incompatibility post-Thanos upgrade raises the cost of attack substantially.”
    reviewerNiceHash incompatibility post-Thanos upgrade raises the cost of attack substantiallyTrue immediately after the November 2020 Thanos fork, but current marketplace data shows NiceHash now supports renting Etchash hashpower, undercutting the claim that incompatibility currently raises attack cost. This looks like a stale claim presented as current.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    NiceHash added support for renting ETChash hashpower after the Thanos upgrade, which somewhat offsets the cost-of-attack increase from other hashrate changes.
    citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
  3. #14[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Classification
    “A 2019 CFTC statement implies commodity-by-analogy to ETH only.”
    reviewerA 2019 CFTC statement implies commodity-by-analogy to ETH onlyThe page's phrasing inverts the actual implication of the cited 2019 statement: contemporaneous reporting on the same event has Tarbert specifically naming Ethereum Classic as a likely beneficiary of the by-analogy reasoning, not excluding it.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    A 2019 CFTC statement by then-Chairman Heath Tarbert implied that forked assets like Ethereum Classic would likely inherit ETH's commodity classification by analogy.
    citedwww.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8051-19

unverifiable

4 claims

No source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.

  1. #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Hashrate Security — Current
    “ETC now controls 90-95% of ETChash hashrate.”
    reviewerETC now controls 90-95% of ETChash hashrateNo independent source found stating a specific 90-95% figure for ETC's share of ETChash-algorithm hashrate; could not verify either way.
    citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
  2. #16[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Grayscale ETCG Trust
    “Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust launched in 2017 with ~$283M NAV as of December 2024.”
    reviewerGrayscale ETCG NAV was ~$283M as of December 2024Neither cited source actually contains a December 2024 NAV figure of $283M. A later Q1 2025 10-Q implies net assets fell to ~$188.5M by March 31, 2025 after a 33% quarterly decline, which backs into a starting 2025 NAV in the low-$280M range — consistent with, but not a direct source for, the $283M figure. The specific figure could not be verified against the sources actually cited on the page.
    citedwww.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1705181/…tcg-20231231.htmwww.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1705181/…tcg-20240930.htm
  3. #20[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Developer Activity and Ecosystem
    “TVL is approximately $150K with ~31,690 daily transactions.”
    reviewerTVL is approximately $150K with ~31,690 daily transactionsTVL figure is plausible given the broad range seen in third-party trackers but could not be pinned to a specific, dated source. The 31,690 daily-transactions figure could not be found in any source consulted.
    citedetccooperative.org/posts/2025-03-14-the-…ective-report-en
  4. #22[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Olympia Upgrade Governance Controversy
    “Testnet went live in April 2026 with mainnet targeted for end of 2026.”
    reviewerOlympia testnet went live in April 2026 with mainnet targeted for end of 2026The cited source does not contain the specific dates asserted; other reporting places the planned testnet in Q4 2025, not April 2026, and suggests the mainnet timeline has since slipped past the stated end-of-2026 target. Not enough to call this disputed outright, but it could not be verified as stated.
    citedecips.ethereumclassic.org/ECIPs/ecip-1111

partially supported

3 claims

The cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.

  1. #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: 51% Attacks — August 2020 Triple Attack
    “Three separate 51% attacks occurred in August 2020. 3,693, then 4,000, then 7,000+ blocks were reorganized. Approximately 807,260 ETC (~$5.6M) was double-spent. The attacker spent less than $200K in rented NiceHash hashrate.”
    reviewerThree separate 51% attacks occurred in August 2020, reorganizing 3,693, then 4,000, then 7,000+ blocks, with approximately 807,260 ETC (~$5.6M) double-spent and the attacker spending less than $200K in rented NiceHash hashrateThe block-count figures (3,693/4,000/7,000+) and the <$200K NiceHash spend are well supported, but the 807,260 ETC/$5.6M figure is sourced to a single attack (the first), not the sum of all three as the sentence implies. Separately, the causation of the first event as a deliberate attack (vs. a miner running outdated software) was contested by Cointelegraph's later reporting.
    citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2020/08/29/ethe…ttack-in-a-monthdecrypt.co/37721/hacker-nets-over-5-mill…lassic-51-attack
  2. #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “Third 51% attack: 7,000+ blocks reorganized; ~$5.6M double-spent total”
    reviewerTimeline: third 51% attack on 2020-08-29 reorganized 7,000+ blocks with ~$5.6M double-spent totalSame underlying misattribution as the August 2020 section; the $5.6M figure is sourced to a different (earlier) attack than the one this timeline entry is attached to.
    citeddecrypt.co/37721/hacker-nets-over-5-mill…lassic-51-attack
  3. #24[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Ecosystem Scams and Incidents
    “ETC Dev dissolved in December 2018 with allegations of hostile interference by ETC Labs.”
    reviewerETC Dev dissolved in December 2018 with allegations of hostile interference by ETC LabsThe underlying claim is substantively true per other reporting, but the source actually cited on the page does not address this event at all — it is about an unrelated 2020 resignation. This is a citation/sourcing mismatch rather than a factual error in the claim itself.
    citedwww.theblock.co/post/58953/ethereum-clas…-funding-support

confirmed

12 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: DAO Hack and Fork Origin
    “In June 2016, $60M was drained from The DAO via a reentrancy exploit.”
    reviewer$60M was drained from The DAO via a reentrancy exploit in June 2016The $60M figure is a defensible, commonly-cited valuation of the 3.6M ETH taken, though other reputable outlets cite $50M or $40M depending on which day's ETH price is used. The claim itself is reasonably supported; the cited chain.link source is dead (see separate link_rot finding).
    citedblog.chain.link/reentrancy-attacks-and-the-dao-hack/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
  2. #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: DAO Hack and Fork Origin
    “A July 2016 hard fork at block 1,920,000 reversed the theft, creating Ethereum (ETH). Ethereum Classic preserved the original unaltered ledger.”
    reviewerA July 2016 hard fork at block 1,920,000 created Ethereum (ETH), and ETC preserved the original unaltered ledgerWell-established, widely corroborated fact.
    citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
  3. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: DAO Hack and Fork Origin
    “Only 5.5% voter turnout participated in the fork vote.”
    reviewerOnly 5.5% voter turnout participated in the fork voteDirectly confirmed by the cited source.
    citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
  4. #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: 51% Attack — January 2019
    “219,500 ETC (~$1.1M) was double-spent in a 51% attack. Coinbase detected and halted ETC transactions. The ETC team initially denied the attack before confirming it.”
    reviewer219,500 ETC (~$1.1M) was double-spent in the January 2019 51% attack; Coinbase detected and halted ETC transactions; ETC team initially denied before confirmingCoinbase's own figure grew from an initial ~88,500 ETC to a final 219,500 ETC; the page cites the final, larger figure, which is accurate. The initial-denial detail is independently corroborated.
    citedwww.technologyreview.com/2019/01/08/1379…in-in-a-rare-51/www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbases-perspect…etc-double-spend
  5. #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Hashrate Security — Current
    “Post-Merge hashrate surged to 300+ TH/s as displaced ETH miners migrated.”
    reviewerPost-Merge hashrate surged to 300+ TH/sConfirmed by cited source, though current 2026 mining-pool trackers (miningboard.com, 2miners, kryptex) show figures mostly in the 140-210 TH/s range, suggesting the network may have come down somewhat from the peak cited.
    citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
  6. #13[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Classification
    “No explicit SEC or CFTC classification for ETC exists. ETC was absent from the March 2026 joint 16-asset commodity list.”
    reviewerNo explicit SEC or CFTC classification for ETC exists, and ETC was absent from the March 2026 joint 16-asset commodity listConfirmed on both counts.
    citedwww.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8051-19
  7. #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Grayscale ETCG Trust
    “Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust launched in 2017 with ~$283M NAV as of December 2024.”
    reviewerGrayscale Ethereum Classic Trust launched in 2017Launch year is confirmed by the cited SEC filing.
    citedwww.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1705181/…tcg-20231231.htm
  8. #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Grayscale ETCG Trust
    “It has historically traded at up to 458% premium and 77% discount.”
    reviewerETCG has historically traded at up to 458% premium and 77% discountExact figures directly confirmed in the cited filing's text.
    citedwww.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1705181/…tcg-20231231.htm
  9. #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Grayscale ETCG Trust
    “No ETF conversion filing has been identified.”
    reviewerNo ETF conversion filing has been identified for ETCGAppropriately cautious phrasing; consistent with available evidence.
  10. #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Developer Activity and Ecosystem
    “Bob Summerwill departed in December 2024.”
    reviewerBob Summerwill departed [ETC Cooperative] in December 2024Fact is independently corroborated via a different ETC Cooperative post (Dec 5, 2024), though the specific URL cited on the page would not render its text for direct verification.
    citedetccooperative.org/posts/2025-03-14-the-…ective-report-en
  11. #21[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Olympia Upgrade Governance Controversy
    “A Nolympia petition signed by F2Pool, 2Miners, and Antpool opposes it as a miner tax violating core principles.”
    reviewerNolympia petition opposing the Olympia treasury proposal was signed by F2Pool, 2Miners, and AntpoolDirectly confirmed by the cited, currently-live source. Note: this is advocacy/petition content, not a neutral source, but the claim as written (who signed, and that framing) is accurately represented.
    citednolympia.dev/
  12. #23[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Ecosystem Scams and Incidents
    “A January 2020 'EAgharta' hard fork scam targeted ETC holders.”
    reviewerA January 2020 'EAgharta' hard fork scam targeted ETC holdersDirectly confirmed by the cited, live source.
    citedcointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-classic-…t-hard-fork-scam
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.