← Goose Financereviewed 2026-11-02 · 11 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Goose Finance 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
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.
- #8[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2021-02-20”
reviewerEGG all-time high on 2021-02-20Aggregator data gives Feb 19, 2021 for the ATH, one day earlier. Based on a search snippet rather than a fetched page, so low-moderate confidence.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2021-02-19
unverifiable
4 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Incidents and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“Smart Contract Hacking classifies the severity of this incident as 'Low' based on dollar amount lost, ranking it approximately #1,911 all-time by loss.”
reviewerSmart Contract Hacking classifies severity as Low and ranks the incident about #1,911 by lossThe cited page, as fetched, contains neither the severity label nor the rank. - #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Audits and Prior Mitigations
“Approximately 46% of audited code achieved full coverage matching.”
reviewerApproximately 46% of audited code achieved full coverage matchingFigure not found in the cited CertiK page. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Economics and Sustainability Concerns
“CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap both confirm EGG is down approximately 99.99% from its all-time high as of 2026.”
reviewerEGG down about 99.99% from ATH; current price about $0.008I did not fetch CoinGecko or CMC directly. The aggregator data is consistent with a decline above 99.9%. - #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview and Background
“The protocol forked from PancakeSwap and introduced several differentiating mechanics: a 4% deposit burn fee (3% used to buy EGG for the lottery pool, 1% directed to development)”
reviewerLaunched Feb 2021 on BSC as a PancakeSwap fork with 4% deposit fee, lottery and layered farmingNot independently checked within the time spent. Launch timing is consistent with the CertiK audit request date of Feb 17, 2021.
stale
1 claimThe claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.
- #9[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Market Trajectory and Current Status
“DeFiLlama reports current total value locked (TVL) in the protocol at approximately $266,892 as of 2026”
reviewerDeFiLlama TVL about $266,892TVL is a moving figure and the page's number is older. Correction based on a search snippet.Proposed correction (not yet applied)DeFiLlama reports current total value locked (TVL) in the protocol at approximately $373,883 as of October 2026
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Incidents and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“a protocol logic error requiring deep familiarity with Solidity and EVM internals as well as precise transaction ordering within a single atomic block”
reviewerExploit required deep Solidity/EVM familiarity and precise ordering in a single atomic blockEditorial characterization not in source; the mechanism is flash-loan-assisted share minting vs redemption accounting.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incidents and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“Despite completing two formal security audits — one by Hacken and one by CertiK — Goose Finance suffered a smart contract exploit on March 14, 2026.”
reviewerExploit on March 14, 2026 drained about $8,000 via share accounting flawDate, amount and root cause match the cited source and DefiLlama. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incidents and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“The incident was first publicly reported via a DefimonAlerts alert on X.”
reviewerIncident first reported via DefimonAlerts; page omits that BlockSec analysed itAlert source matches. 'First' is not explicitly established. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incidents and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“The CertiK audit, completed October 12, 2021, had identified 14 total findings: 0 critical, 2 major (both resolved), 3 minor (2 unresolved at time of publication), and 9 informational.”
reviewerCertiK audit completed Oct 12, 2021 with 14 findings: 0 critical, 2 major resolved, 3 minor (2 unresolved), 9 informationalCounts match. CertiK labels the tiers high/low, not major/minor. It also lists 1 informational finding as unresolved, which the page omits. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Audits and Prior Mitigations
“Goose Finance has no active CertiK bug bounty program and no recent re-audit on record.”
reviewerNo CertiK bug bounty and no recent re-auditConsistent with CertiK Skynet listing.
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.