Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Hope 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.
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.
- #2[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“Hope Finance was an Arbitrum-based DeFi protocol that launched in January 2023”
reviewerProtocol launched in January 2023The January 2023 date refers to the Twitter account. The platform went live on 2023-02-20, which the same summary states in its next sentence.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Hope Finance was an Arbitrum-based DeFi protocol that launched in February 2023
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Audit and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“The divergence between the audited contract and the deployed contract — and the subsequent deletion of the Cognitos contact's account — are cited by analysts as evidence of premeditated fraud.”
reviewerAnalysts cite the audited/deployed divergence and the deleted account as evidence of premeditated fraudThe facts are reported, but I found no analyst attributing premeditation to these two points. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview
“The project is distinct from a separate, unrelated 'HOPE' stablecoin ecosystem announced by former Babel Finance CEO Flex Yang in March 2023.”
reviewerSeparate HOPE stablecoin by former Babel Finance CEO Flex Yang announced March 2023None of the cited sources mention this, and I did not find an independent source in the time spent.
stale
1 claimThe claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.
- #1[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Fund Flow and On-Chain Tracing
“Tornado Cash is a sanctioned Ethereum mixing service that the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated in August 2022.”
reviewerTornado Cash is currently a sanctioned serviceThe August 2022 designation is correct but the present-tense 'is a sanctioned' is outdated; OFAC delisted the smart contracts in March 2025.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Tornado Cash is an Ethereum mixing service that the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated in August 2022 and removed from the SDN list in March 2025.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“in what blockchain security firms CertiK and PeckShield assessed as an insider-orchestrated exit scam, making it the largest exit scam recorded on Arbitrum at that time”
reviewerCertiK and PeckShield assessed it as an insider exit scam; largest on Arbitrum at that timeThe exit-scam assessment is CertiK's. PeckShield is only sourced for fund flows. 'Largest' is qualified in sources as 'this year so far' (2023). - #10[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“CertiK and PeckShield publish on-chain analyses confirming the exit scam and tracing fund flows to Tornado Cash. CertiK characterizes the incident as driven by centralization vulnerabilities and multisig mishandling.”
reviewerCertiK and PeckShield published analyses on 2023-02-21The content is supported, but the cited CertiK post is dated 2023-02-28, not 02-21. PeckShield is not in the cited source. I did not find a source for a 02-21 date.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Exit Scam / Exploit
“second, three of four multisig owners approved an update to the SwapHelper contract pointing to the fraudulent router”
reviewerThree of four multisig owners approved the SwapHelper change to a fraudulent routerSupported by CertiK. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Exit Scam / Exploit
“converted to approximately 1,095 ETH (valued at roughly $1.86 million), and deposited into Tornado Cash across three addresses.”
reviewer477 WETH and ~1,061,759 USDC moved, bridged via CelrBridge to ~1,095 ETH (~$1.86M) and sent to Tornado Cash across three addressesConsistent across sources. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Audit and Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
“Cognitos concluded the contract had 'passed the audit successfully.'”
reviewerCognitos flagged reentrancy and an incorrect modifier but said contract passed auditSupported by Cointelegraph and CryptoPotato. Timeline[1] cites CoinCu, which does not mention reentrancy, the modifier or a pass, so the cited source there is mismatched. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Perpetrator Identity
“some noted the address associated with the doxxed individual appeared to correspond to a vacant lot”
reviewerCommunity noted the doxxed individual's address appeared to be a vacant lotSupported by CryptoSlate.