← Gurhan Kizilozreviewed 2026-09-05 · 35 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Gurhan Kiziloz 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 11unverifiable 1link rot 2partially supported 1confirmed 2013 corrections pending · 0 applied
disputed
11 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #1[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“His prior UK fintech Lanistar received an FCA consumer warning in November 2020 and was liquidated by a UK High Court in September 2025.”
reviewerLanistar was liquidated by a UK High Court in September 2025The Gazette's official winding-up order record shows Lanistar Limited was ordered into liquidation on 2 April 2025, not September 2025. The cited source (an October 2024 article about a different, earlier petition) does not support the stated date.Proposed correction (not yet applied)His prior UK fintech Lanistar received an FCA consumer warning in November 2020 and was liquidated by a UK High Court in April 2025. - #2[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Lanistar: Prior Company History and FCA Warning
“This second petition resulted in a High Court order liquidating Lanistar in September 2025.”
reviewerThe second winding-up petition (Accomplish Financial) resulted in a High Court liquidation order in September 2025Same underlying error as the summary: the actual liquidation order date per the official Gazette record is 2 April 2025, not September 2025.Proposed correction (not yet applied)This second petition resulted in a High Court order liquidating Lanistar in April 2025. - #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2025-09-01”
reviewerUK High Court ordered Lanistar into liquidation on 2025-09-01Timeline date field is wrong for the same reason as the summary/section findings in this defect group.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2025-04-02 - #4[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“https://tech.eu/2024/10/21/lanistar-faces-liquidation-verdict-this-week/”
reviewerTech.eu (Oct 2024 article) is the correct source for the Lanistar liquidation timeline entryThe cited URL is live (not dead) but does not support the timeline event it is attached to; it covers an earlier, different petition.Proposed correction (not yet applied)https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4860749 - #5[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Tech.eu”
reviewerTech.eu is the publisher of the Lanistar liquidation timeline entryPublisher label should change along with the source_url correction in this defect group.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The Gazette - #6[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Lanistar: Prior Company History and FCA Warning
“A petition filed by its London landlord was dismissed in the High Court in October 2023 after the company settled outstanding debts.”
reviewerThe London landlord's winding-up petition against Lanistar was dismissed in the High Court in October 2023The petition and settlement occurred in 2024, not 2023; the page's own cited source is dated October 2024 and describes these events as current at that time.Proposed correction (not yet applied)A petition filed by its London landlord was dismissed in the High Court in October 2024 after the company settled outstanding debts. - #7[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Unpaid Obligations and Broken Commitments
“Inter Milan issued a cease-and-desist letter to BlockDAG in June 2025 for non-payment.”
reviewerInter Milan issued a cease-and-desist letter to BlockDAG in June 2025 for non-paymentThe page's own cited source dates the cease-and-desist letter to August 2025, not June 2025; June 2025 is when the underlying non-payment occurred.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Inter Milan issued a cease-and-desist letter to BlockDAG in August 2025 for non-payment. - #8[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2025-06-01”
reviewerInter Milan cease-and-desist occurred on 2025-06-01Timeline date field should reflect the letter's actual issuance month per the cited source.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2025-08-01 - #9[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“Mining equipment sold through the presale — including X30 miners at $500 and X100 miners at $1,600 — was largely undelivered, with only approximately 20 prototype units shipped as of August 2025 despite roughly 2,550 X30 and 2,250 X100 orders outstanding.”
reviewerOnly approximately 20 BlockDAG mining prototype units had shipped as of August 2025The order counts (2,550 X30 / 2,250 X100) and prototype count (~20) match the cited source, but the page's 'as of August 2025' date does not; the source places the shipment in January 2026.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Mining equipment sold through the presale — including X30 miners at $500 and X100 miners at $1,600 — was largely undelivered, with only approximately 20 prototype units shipped as of January 2026 despite roughly 2,550 X30 and 2,250 X100 orders outstanding. - #10[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“BlockDAG marketed a presale price of $0.05 per BDAG token.”
reviewerBlockDAG marketed a presale price of $0.05 per BDAG tokenMultiple sources place actual presale batch prices from fractions of a cent up to roughly $0.015-ish, with $0.05 being the marketed price at exchange listing, not during the presale itself.Proposed correction (not yet applied)BlockDAG marketed a listing price of $0.05 per BDAG token. - #11[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“By mid-2026 the token was trading near $0.00002, representing a loss of approximately 99.9% from its all-time high and a loss of approximately 99.96% for investors who participated at the marketed $0.05 presale price.”
reviewerInvestors who bought at the marketed $0.05 presale price suffered a 99.96% lossThe percentage calculation itself is arithmetically consistent with a $0.05 reference price, but mislabeling that reference price as the 'presale price' overstates typical presale-participant losses, since most presale buyers paid far less than $0.05.Proposed correction (not yet applied)By mid-2026 the token was trading near $0.00002, representing a loss of approximately 99.9% from its all-time high and a loss of approximately 99.96% for investors who participated at the marketed $0.05 listing price.
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #15[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Unpaid Obligations and Broken Commitments
“BlockDAG signs sponsorship agreement with Borussia Dortmund worth approximately EUR 2 million, which went unpaid and the partnership was terminated in September 2024.”
reviewerBorussia Dortmund terminated its BlockDAG sponsorship in September 2024Reporting is genuinely inconsistent/vague on the exact termination month; available sources place the underlying non-payment letter in late September 2024 but do not pin down a termination date, so this could not be confirmed or clearly disputed.
link rot
2 claimsA cited source no longer resolves or no longer says what the page attributes to it.
- #12[link rot][awaiting moderator]in section: Nexus International and Gambling Operations
“https://www.mexc.com/news/1052136”
reviewerThe MEXC News article on BlockDAG/Nexus gambling operations is a live, citable sourceThis source is dead (410 Gone), consistent with the archive metadata already recorded in sources_used (archive_error: error:gone). The underlying claim (Kiziloz controls Nexus International, Spartans.com, MegaPosta) remains supported by the other two cited sources for this section, so removal rather than replacement is proposed. - #13[link rot][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“https://www.coingabbar.com/en/price-prediction/blockdag-listing-and-launch-date-bdag-price-prediction-2026”
reviewerThe CoinGabbar article cited for the BlockDAG presale end-date timeline entry supports a February 2, 2026 conclusionThe underlying Feb 2, 2026 date is independently well-corroborated by other reporting (and already used in the page's own timeline/sections), but this specific citation has drifted to show unrelated, contradictory content — a rolling promotional page rather than a stable news article.Proposed correction (not yet applied)https://cryptonews.com/cryptocurrency/blockdag-launch-date/
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #14[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Unpaid Obligations and Broken Commitments
“Investigators tracking BlockDAG's public commitments reported a failure rate exceeding 94% across tracked promises.”
reviewerInvestigators reported a failure rate exceeding 94% across BlockDAG's tracked public commitmentsA comparable statistic exists and is independently corroborated in substance, but neither of the two sources actually cited for this section contains the 94% figure; the real source appears to be an uncited, single-purpose advocacy/tracker site of unclear credibility.
confirmed
20 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Presale Fundraising Claims and On-Chain Discrepancies
“BlockDAG's website claimed the project raised $442 million during its presale.”
reviewerBlockDAG's website claimed the project raised $442 million during its presaleDirectly confirmed by the cited source. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Presale Fundraising Claims and On-Chain Discrepancies
“Nic Van Den Bergh, speaking as CEO, stated the actual amount raised was approximately $200 million.”
reviewerNic Van Den Bergh, speaking as CEO, stated the actual amount raised was approximately $200 millionConfirmed. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Presale Fundraising Claims and On-Chain Discrepancies
“DL News reporting tracked at least $110 million routed through Binance and BTSE exchanges and approximately $7 million through the Bridgers token protocol.”
reviewerDL News reporting tracked at least $110 million routed through Binance and BTSE, and approximately $7 million through BridgersConfirmed directly. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Presale Fundraising Claims and On-Chain Discrepancies
“ZachXBT noted that he found 'no disclosure in the original BlockDAG Network or ZKP presale materials indicating that funds would be used to promote a separate venture.'”
reviewerZachXBT alleged $25 million in commingled BlockDAG/ZKP presale funds paid influencers to promote Spartans.com, and found no disclosure of this in presale materialsQuote and $25M commingling allegation confirmed by the cited source. - #20[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Identity Concealment and BlockDAG Leadership
“ZachXBT stated: 'The grifter Gurhan Kiziloz is the real co-founder secretly behind BlockDAG, paying people like Antony Turner to be the face while transferring millions in presale funds from retail investors via Middle Eastern OTC brokers.'”
reviewerZachXBT's tweet calling Kiziloz a 'grifter' and describing OTC-broker fund routingConfirmed against the primary source tweet. - #21[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Identity Concealment and BlockDAG Leadership
“On-chain investigator ZachXBT published accusations in October 2025 identifying Kiziloz as the true co-founder operating behind the scenes, alleging that Turner was paid to serve as a front.”
reviewerOn-chain investigator ZachXBT published accusations in October 2025 identifying Kiziloz as BlockDAG's true co-founderConfirmed; matches timeline[15] date of 2025-10-29. - #22[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Identity Concealment and BlockDAG Leadership
“Kiziloz confirmed his own role in a live investor AMA on December 29, 2025, reportedly explaining that he had concealed his identity because of 'a few failed projects in the past.'”
reviewerKiziloz confirmed his role in a live investor AMA on December 29, 2025 and cited 'a few failed projects in the past' as his reason for concealment; Turner was subsequently dismissed for NDA breach; Van Den Bergh became new CEOConfirmed via corroborating reporting; the exact quoted wording is attributed consistently across multiple outlets even though it is not verbatim in every individual cited source. - #23[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Identity Concealment and BlockDAG Leadership
“In July 2024, Antony Turner was introduced as the project's CEO and public face.”
reviewerIn July 2024, Antony Turner was introduced as BlockDAG's CEO and public faceConfirmed. - #24[confirmed][no action needed]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“The presale concluded on approximately February 2, 2026.”
reviewerBDAG presale concluded on approximately February 2, 2026Confirmed by cross-corroboration, though note the separate link_rot finding regarding the CoinGabbar citation used for the corresponding timeline entry. - #25[confirmed][no action needed]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“BDAG listed on exchanges beginning March 4, 2026, and reached an all-time high of approximately $0.40 on March 29, 2026, before collapsing.”
reviewerBDAG listed on exchanges beginning March 4, 2026, and reached an all-time high of approximately $0.40 on March 29, 2026Confirmed. - #26[confirmed][no action needed]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“By mid-2026 the token was trading near $0.00002, representing a loss of approximately 99.9% from its all-time high”
reviewerBy mid-2026 BDAG was trading near $0.00002, a ~99.9% decline from its all-time highThe 99.9% peak-to-trough figure (as distinct from the disputed 'presale price' framing) is confirmed. - #27[confirmed][no action needed]in section: BDAG Token Launch and Price Collapse
“The project also promised 50 billion BDAG tokens for the presale, but investors reported that between 90 and 150 billion tokens may have been sold after a bonus coin scheme was introduced in April 2024.”
reviewerBlockDAG promised 50 billion BDAG tokens for the presale; investors reported 90-150 billion may have been sold after an April 2024 bonus coin schemeConfirmed. - #28[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Unpaid Obligations and Broken Commitments
“One individual investor, identified pseudonymously as 'Adam,' invested approximately $25,000 across 22 transactions between April 2024 and May 2025 and received neither miners nor satisfactory token allocations.”
reviewerApproximately 24 employees were owed over $140,000 in unpaid December wages; investor 'Adam' invested ~$25,000 across 22 transactions between April 2024 and May 2025Confirmed, along with the related $140,000/24-employee unpaid wages figure in the same section. - #29[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Actions Against BlockDAG
“On March 19, 2025, the Financial Services Authority of Seychelles issued a public warning against BlockDAG Network and its issuing entity, DAG SYSTEMS LTD., a Seychelles-registered company, for unauthorized activity under the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act 2024.”
reviewerThe FSA Seychelles issued a public warning against BlockDAG/DAG SYSTEMS LTD on March 19, 2025; DAG SYSTEMS LTD was struck off and dissolved as of April 1, 2025Confirmed directly from the regulator's own page for the warning date; the strike-off date is corroborated by secondary reporting since the regulator's page itself does not restate the dissolution date in the fetched text. - #30[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Brazilian Court Asset Freeze and Appeal
“In May 2026, a Brazilian court ordered Tether to freeze approximately $213 million in USDT across 48 wallets linked to Gurhan Kiziloz.”
reviewerA Brazilian court ordered the freeze of approximately $213 million in USDT across 48 wallets linked to Kiziloz in May 2026; total asset freeze reached approximately $527 million; the matter is civil, not criminalConfirmed by multiple independent outlets; the May 14, 2026 specific date (used in timeline[20]) is also corroborated. - #31[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Brazilian Court Asset Freeze and Appeal
“In August 2026, a Brazilian federal appellate court narrowed the freeze, finding that the original order was too broad and that tax obligations must be calculated under laws in effect at the time the activity occurred rather than retroactively applied rules.”
reviewerIn August 2026, a Brazilian federal appellate court narrowed the freeze, finding the original order too broad and that retroactive tax rules could not apply; full resolution expected by October 2026Confirmed directly from the cited source. - #32[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Nexus International and Gambling Operations
“Kiziloz controls Nexus International Holdings, a privately held group operating online gambling brands including Spartans.com and MegaPosta.”
reviewerKiziloz controls Nexus International Holdings, which operates Spartans.com and MegaPosta gambling brandsConfirmed via a live remaining source even though the MEXC source for this section is dead (see separate link_rot finding). - #33[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Lanistar: Prior Company History and FCA Warning
“On November 18, 2020, the UK Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer warning against Lanistar, stating the firm was providing financial services or products without FCA authorisation.”
reviewerThe FCA issued a consumer warning against Lanistar on November 18, 2020, and removed it on November 20, 2020 after the company added a disclaimerConfirmed directly from the regulator's own statement. - #34[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“Gurhan Kiziloz is a Turkish-British entrepreneur who co-founded BlockDAG Network”
reviewerGurhan Kiziloz is a Turkish-British entrepreneurConfirmed via independent search, though the page does not cite any source for this biographical claim — see coverage_gaps. - #35[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Lanistar: Prior Company History and FCA Warning
“A second winding-up petition was filed by Accomplish Financial Limited, a payments solutions provider, in February 2025.”
reviewerSecond winding-up petition against Lanistar filed by Accomplish Financial Limited in February 2025Confirmed; correctly dated, unlike the resulting liquidation-order date (see disputed findings).
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.