Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Indexed 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.
link rot
1 claimA cited source no longer resolves or no longer says what the page attributes to it.
- #6[link rot][awaiting moderator]in the cited sources
“https://web.archive.org/web/20260830203230/https://coinjournal.net/news/proshares-bitcoin-futures-etf-set-to-be-listed-today/?dynamic”
reviewerArchived copy for the coinjournal.net source is of the correct articleThe stored archive_url points at a ProShares Bitcoin ETF article, not the Indexed Finance article, so it is not a valid snapshot of the cited source. The live URL could not be read (502). The archive field should be removed.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Post-Hack Governance Attacks (2023)
“A second attacker then submitted Proposal 27, which was passed before the poison pill could be triggered.”
reviewerSecond attacker's Proposal 27 was passed before the poison pill could be triggeredCore sequence ($10k DAI, withdrawal, multisig return, ~$120k treasury) is supported. Proposal numbers 26/27 and the 'passed' detail could not be confirmed in the cited Cointelegraph piece. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“KyberSwap is exploited for approximately $49-50 million.”
reviewerKyberSwap exploit was approximately $49-50 millionOther sources give ~$48M, so the $49-50M range is slightly high. Minor; no source fetched gives the $49-50M figure, so no correction is proposed.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Criminal Charges and Fugitive Status
“The maximum penalty, if convicted on all counts, is 90 years in prison — 20 years each for wire fraud, extortion, and both money laundering charges, and 10 years for the computer damage count.”
reviewerDOJ unsealed a five-count indictment charging Medjedovic, age 22, with the listed counts; max 90 yearsDOJ release matches counts, per-count maxima and age; the 90-year total is arithmetic from those. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Criminal Charges and Fugitive Status
“In December 2021, a Canadian court issued an arrest warrant for Andean Medjedovic.”
reviewerA Canadian court issued an arrest warrant in December 2021Supported. Context: the warrant stemmed from a civil hearing he failed to attend, not a criminal charge. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Post-Hack Governance Attacks (2023)
“Separately, ZachXBT investigated the second governance attack and alleged that the funding wallet for the attacker was linked to an individual named Alex Chon, described in that report as a suspected DPRK IT worker.”
reviewerZachXBT linked the second governance attacker's funding wallet to Alex Chon, a suspected DPRK IT workerPage properly hedges as an allegation. No page source cited for this sentence; supported only by search-result summaries of ZachXBT reporting.