Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Infini 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.
- #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Infini secures an MSB registration with Canada's FINTRAC covering foreign exchange, money transfer and remittance, and virtual currency services.”
reviewerInfini obtained a FINTRAC MSB registration in May 2026Self-issued press release; could not be read (403). The FINTRAC MSB registry was not checked. Not scored. - #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Failures
“Some reports, originating on social media and not independently confirmed, allege that a co-founder known as @0xsexybanana deleted her X account shortly after the exploit.”
reviewerRekt/other source: co-founder deleted X account (flagged by page as unconfirmed)Page hedges, but names a specific living individual's handle based on unconfirmed social media rumor with no cited source. Recommend removal or sourcing. - #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Fund Movement and Laundering
“In total at least 15,470 ETH, valued at about $32.7 million at the time of transfer, was routed through Tornado Cash.”
reviewerLaundering trail: 15,470 ETH (~$32.7M) via Tornado Cash; 6,316 ETH bought at $2,109 in Feb 2026Not fetched in this pass; the headline of the cited LiveBitcoinNews piece matches the $32.7M figure but body text was not verified.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #1[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: February 2025 Insider Exploit
“Reports differ on the second amount: CertiK-based reporting gives 11,301,933 resolvUSDC (about $11.45 million) followed by 35,654,943 USUALUSDC+ (about $35.65 million), while Rekt News/CoinDesk-based reporting gives about $11.45 million followed by about $38.06 million; both put the total at roughly $49.5 million.”
reviewerTwo drain transactions: CertiK-based amounts 11,301,933 resolvUSDC (~$11.45M) and 35,654,943 USUALUSDC+ (~$35.65M); Rekt reports ~$38.06M secondFigures match CertiK and Rekt. The CoinDesk page I fetched only gives the $49.5M total, so attributing the 38.06M figure to CoinDesk is unconfirmed. The arithmetic 11.45+35.65 is about 47.1M, not 49.5M, which the page does not flag.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: February 2025 Insider Exploit
“The attacker funded the exploit wallet with 1 ETH from Tornado Cash to cover gas and obscure origins.”
reviewerAttacker waited 114 days; role 0x8e0b; 1 ETH from Tornado Cash funded the attackerCore technical claims match. CertiK does not mention 114 days; that comes from Rekt. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“Founder Christian Li accepted responsibility, pledged personal coverage of losses and offered a 20% bounty”
reviewerChristian Li accepted responsibility, pledged to cover the loss, and offered a 20% bounty within 48 hoursSupported. The timeline[2] entry cites CoinDesk for 'legal immunity', which CoinDesk does not state; other cited sources (crypto.news) cover it.