Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read four.meme 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.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: First Smart Contract Exploit — February 2025 ($183,000)
“four.meme announced it would compensate affected users and provided a damage submission form.”
reviewerfour.meme announced it would compensate affected users and provided a damage submission formThe CryptoSlate article does not mention compensation or a form. I did not check the other cited articles. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT Flag and Community Intelligence
“has flagged four.meme as a high-risk entity.”
reviewerZachXBT has flagged four.meme as a high-risk entityThe page itself admits the flag is not confirmed via an archived post. A claim about a named person should not be stated as fact without a source. Recommend rewording or removal. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Posture and Audit History
“No regulatory body has opened a formal investigation into four.meme as of the date of this investigation.”
reviewerNo regulatory body has opened a formal investigationA negative claim with no source. My search found no reports of one, but absence is not proof.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Second Smart Contract Exploit — March 2025 (~$130,000–$174,000)
“Stolen funds — approximately 200 BNB — were moved through FixedFloat, a known privacy-oriented exchange, and across multiple wallets to obscure the trail.”
reviewerSecond exploit on March 18, 2025, losses $130,000-$174,000, stolen funds moved through FixedFloatPer Decrypt, FixedFloat was the attacker's funding source, not the laundering route for stolen funds. The 205 BNB split across wallets is supported. Other cited sources (Lunaray, QuillAudits) were not fetched, so this may be supported elsewhere. - #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“four.meme resumes token launch function after internal security review. No third-party audit report is published.”
reviewerPlatform resumed launch function on 2025-03-19Decrypt says the launch function resumed a few hours after suspension, which suggests Mar 18, not Mar 19. Time zones may explain it. I did not confirm the exact date, so I am proposing no correction. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Second Smart Contract Exploit — March 2025 (~$130,000–$174,000)
“On March 18, 2025, four.meme suffered a second distinct smart contract exploit approximately six weeks after the first.”
reviewerSecond exploit occurred approximately six weeks after the firstFeb 11 to Mar 18 is 35 days, which is five weeks. The page's 'six weeks' is slightly off, and so is the summary's 'within six weeks'. This is a minor imprecision.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: First Smart Contract Exploit — February 2025 ($183,000)
“On February 11, 2025, four.meme suffered its first confirmed smart contract exploit, resulting in losses estimated at approximately $183,000 to $200,000.”
reviewerFirst exploit on Feb 11, 2025 with losses of about $183,000 to $200,000Date and range match the cited reporting. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Quality, Ecosystem Pollution, and Platform Risks
“In October 2025, the platform was targeted by a large-scale on-chain pollution attack in which over 32,000 tokens were created in a single day”
reviewerOct 2025 pollution attack: over 32,000 tokens in a day; 0.01 BNB fee and manual reviewSupported. The 2025-10 timeline entry is consistent.