Audit log

Every state-changing event for LCX: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1publishby system:backfill

   2026-05-28 17:37:52Z
   Score: ? → ? (no score change)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 422,767,104

   sig

   6MXxv8Vp516S…yZLX4yDxcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   4yGPtdWq7xhC…RgzG4MJfcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (6221 B) ▸

   {"actor":"system:backfill","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","kind":"publish","page_slug":"lcx","published_at":"2026-05-28T17:37:52.916Z","sequence_num":1,"snapshot":{"content_type":"investigation","entity_name":"LCX","sections":[{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.trmlabs.com/post/exploit-radar-lcx-hot-wallet-hack","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/lcxexchangehotwallethack.php","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://cointelegraph.com/news/lcx-loses-6-8m-in-a-hot-wallet-compromise-over-ethereum-blockchain","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://beincrypto.com/lcx-exchange-hacked-6-8m-transferred-to-hackers-wallet/","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/law-firm-serves-anonymous-hacker-a-restraining-order-via-nft-2835925","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://nftnewstoday.com/2022/06/17/first-law-firm-uses-nft-to-serve-an-anonymous-defendant-a-restraining-order/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/lcxexchangehotwallethack.php","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.lcx.com/lcx-receives-8-blockchain-registrations-from-financial-market-authority-liechtenstein/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lcx-receives-licenses-from-the-financial-market-authority-of-liechtenstein-301199446.html","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2022/10/197208-lcx-relaunches-crypto-exchange-regulated-by-liechtenstein-financial-market-authority/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/12/24/3001715/0/en/Crypto-Exchange-LCX-Files-Pre-Application-For-MiCA-License-in-Liechtenstein.html","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.theblock.co/post/257707/leading-the-european-crypto-charge-lcx-set-to-become-first-mica-ready-exchange-in-liechtenstein","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.trustpilot.com/review/lcx.com","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.cybercriminal.com/132701/lcx-com-trust-issues-and-high-risk","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://tradersunion.com/reviews/lcx-com/","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/lcx/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/lcx","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://hacken.io/industry-news-and-insights/lcx-hack-january-2022/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.trmlabs.com/post/exploit-radar-lcx-hot-wallet-hack","type":"other","url":""}]}],"sources_used":[],"summary":"LCX (Liechtenstein Cryptoassets Exchange) is a regulated crypto exchange and tokenization platform headquartered in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, holding eight registrations under the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) pursuant to the Token and Trusted Technology Service Provider Act (TVTG). In January 2022 the exchange suffered a hot wallet compromise in which approximately $7.94 million in crypto assets were stolen, with stolen funds rapidly laundered through Tornado Cash; LCX subsequently used its own funds to compensate affected users and cooperated with international law enforcement to freeze an alleged 60% of stolen assets. The exchange is flagged by ZachXBT and carries a below-average trust score primarily due to the 2022 hack, ongoing user complaints about withdrawal delays and account freezes, and the broader security posture concerns that led to the compromise.","timeline":[{"date":"2018-01-01","event":"LCX (Liechtenstein Cryptoassets Exchange) founded by Monty C. M. Metzger in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.","source":""},{"date":"2020-12-30","event":"LCX AG receives eight registrations from the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) under the TVTG Blockchain Act.","source":""},{"date":"2021-09-01","event":"LCX launches a bug bounty program on HackenProof following a Hacken security assessment.","source":""},{"date":"2022-01-08","event":"Hot wallet hack occurs between 11:23 PM–11:37 PM CET; approximately $7.94M in crypto assets drained. Stolen funds laundered through Tornado Cash within 1.5 hours.","source":""},{"date":"2022-01-09","event":"LCX publicly discloses the hack, suspends deposits and withdrawals, notifies Elliptic and law enforcement in Liechtenstein.","source":""},{"date":"2022-01-09","event":"Monerium freezes approximately 611,000 EURe on-chain; 500 ETH frozen at Coinbase Europe via Liechtenstein court order through Irish law enforcement.","source":""},{"date":"2022-01-28","event":"LCX resumes all deposits and withdrawals; affected users compensated from LCX's own funds.","source":""},{"date":"2022-06-01","event":"LCX files complaint in New York Supreme Court. A temporary restraining order is served on the anonymous defendant via NFT airdrop — alleged first use of NFT legal service in history. 1.3M USDC frozen by Centre Consortium.","source":""},{"date":"2022-10-01","event":"LCX relaunches its exchange with updated infrastructure under continued FMA regulation.","source":""},{"date":"2024-12-24","event":"LCX files pre-application for Pan-European MiCA license in Liechtenstein.","source":""},{"date":"2025-02-01","event":"Liechtenstein implements MiCAR; LCX files formal MiCA license application.","source":""}]},"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 15eceadb-b7ca-4d7a-a6c8-cc1b03d107e6copy
2. #2reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-19 01:41:35Z
   Score: 42 → 42 (no score change)
   The page's core factual claims -- the 2022 hot wallet hack amount, laundering timeline, law-enforcement asset freezes, user compensation commitment, FMA registrations, and the NFT-service legal case -- are all independently corroborated by multiple credible sources and are accurately, appropriately hedged where hedging is warranted. Two defects were found: the 'flagged by ZachXBT' claim in the summary has no citation and could not be corroborated anywhere despite extensive search, and one cited source (cybercriminal.com) has gone link-dead, now redirecting to a domain-parking page. Separately, the page's framing of LCX as carrying a 'below-average trust score' due to the 2022 hack and ongoing complaints does not reflect that LCX has since achieved full MiCA compliance, launched a US exchange, and partnered with Coinbase on a token migration in 2026 -- an omission that skews the page toward the 2022 incident even though the entity's regulatory trajectory since then has been unambiguously toward expansion and compliance, not further incident.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,509,065

   sig

   5aoPABsCXX1A…KCay1mE1copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   DddtwHwR3DFt…pd2pZvnJcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1395 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-19T01:41:34.991Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","new_score":42,"page_slug":"lcx","prev_score":42,"reason":"The page's core factual claims -- the 2022 hot wallet hack amount, laundering timeline, law-enforcement asset freezes, user compensation commitment, FMA registrations, and the NFT-service legal case -- are all independently corroborated by multiple credible sources and are accurately, appropriately hedged where hedging is warranted. Two defects were found: the 'flagged by ZachXBT' claim in the summary has no citation and could not be corroborated anywhere despite extensive search, and one cited source (cybercriminal.com) has gone link-dead, now redirecting to a domain-parking page. Separately, the page's framing of LCX as carrying a 'below-average trust score' due to the 2022 hack and ongoing complaints does not reflect that LCX has since achieved full MiCA compliance, launched a US exchange, and partnered with Coinbase on a token migration in 2026 -- an omission that skews the page toward the 2022 incident even though the entity's regulatory trajectory since then has been unambiguously toward expansion and compliance, not further incident.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 8d8f1991-f574-4a16-b88d-24cd649a283bcopy
3. #3review approve with notesby judgejudge

   2026-08-19 01:41:35Z
   Score: 42 → 62 (+20)
   Content holds up: 11 of 13 claims fully confirmed and 0 disputed (claim_findings summary, disputed_pct 0.1538); the two defects are a dead citation on cybercriminal.com (claim_findings[5]) whose underlying withdrawal-complaint claim is independently corroborated elsewhere, and an unsourced 'flagged by ZachXBT' line (claim_findings[4]) that could not be substantiated. Neither is material to the reader's core conclusion. On calibration: the page's only major incident is a suffered external hack (attribution 'b' in calibration_assessment.incident_attributions[0]), which per the rubric caps severity at CAUTIONARY, not WARNING -- and the response was above-average (same-day disclosure, multi-jurisdiction law enforcement cooperation, ~60% of funds frozen, full user compensation from company funds), with a subsequent regulatory trajectory of expansion and compliance (relaunch, MiCA pre-application and formal application, reported full MiCA compliance and US expansion by 2026) rather than deterioration. The current score of 42 (WARNING) weights the 2022 hack as if it reflected LCX's own conduct rather than an external attack the entity handled well; the reviewer's recommended 62 (CAUTIONARY) better reflects genuine countervailing risk -- recurring Trustpilot withdrawal/KYC complaints and the unverified ZachXBT claim -- without overstating it as fraud-adjacent. Notes: (Remove or add a citation for the 'flagged by ZachXBT' claim in the summary -- no source was found after extensive search.) (Replace the dead cybercriminal.com citation with a live source or archived copy; the underlying withdrawal-complaint claim is otherwise corroborated.) (Add coverage of 2026 developments: full MiCA compliance, LCX Exchange USA launch, and the Coinbase-facilitated LCX token migration.) (Fill in the empty 'heading' and 'content' fields across all six sections -- the reviewed snapshot had no readable body text.)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,509,070

   sig

   q8eEb5XpoweC…oMkvdqR1copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   EaVs3JwgG9NK…w5bU69eQcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (2274 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-19T01:41:34.991Z","decision":"review_approve_with_notes","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","new_score":62,"page_slug":"lcx","prev_score":42,"reason":"Content holds up: 11 of 13 claims fully confirmed and 0 disputed (claim_findings summary, disputed_pct 0.1538); the two defects are a dead citation on cybercriminal.com (claim_findings[5]) whose underlying withdrawal-complaint claim is independently corroborated elsewhere, and an unsourced 'flagged by ZachXBT' line (claim_findings[4]) that could not be substantiated. Neither is material to the reader's core conclusion. On calibration: the page's only major incident is a suffered external hack (attribution 'b' in calibration_assessment.incident_attributions[0]), which per the rubric caps severity at CAUTIONARY, not WARNING -- and the response was above-average (same-day disclosure, multi-jurisdiction law enforcement cooperation, ~60% of funds frozen, full user compensation from company funds), with a subsequent regulatory trajectory of expansion and compliance (relaunch, MiCA pre-application and formal application, reported full MiCA compliance and US expansion by 2026) rather than deterioration. The current score of 42 (WARNING) weights the 2022 hack as if it reflected LCX's own conduct rather than an external attack the entity handled well; the reviewer's recommended 62 (CAUTIONARY) better reflects genuine countervailing risk -- recurring Trustpilot withdrawal/KYC complaints and the unverified ZachXBT claim -- without overstating it as fraud-adjacent. Notes: (Remove or add a citation for the 'flagged by ZachXBT' claim in the summary -- no source was found after extensive search.) (Replace the dead cybercriminal.com citation with a live source or archived copy; the underlying withdrawal-complaint claim is otherwise corroborated.) (Add coverage of 2026 developments: full MiCA compliance, LCX Exchange USA launch, and the Coinbase-facilitated LCX token migration.) (Fill in the empty 'heading' and 'content' fields across all six sections -- the reviewed snapshot had no readable body text.)","score_delta":20,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 71dbf2b0-edcb-47a5-b70c-9db0cfbfba99copy
4. #4reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-26 11:15:53Z
   Score: 62 → 62 (no score change)
   The page's core factual narrative (regulatory registrations, hack amount, timeline, fund freezes, NFT legal service, reimbursement) is well-corroborated by independent primary and secondary sources down to the hour in several cases. The two weak points are an unsourced claim that ZachXBT has flagged LCX, for which no corroborating evidence could be found, and a MiCA-licensing timeline that ends in early 2025 and does not reflect that the application remains pending well past the mid-2026 transitional deadline.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,520,337

   sig

   3r87km6knEvw…YqWh7NcQcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   AKuAu3fwuBLF…L65hDcAdcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (854 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:15:53.221Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","new_score":62,"page_slug":"lcx","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's core factual narrative (regulatory registrations, hack amount, timeline, fund freezes, NFT legal service, reimbursement) is well-corroborated by independent primary and secondary sources down to the hour in several cases. The two weak points are an unsourced claim that ZachXBT has flagged LCX, for which no corroborating evidence could be found, and a MiCA-licensing timeline that ends in early 2025 and does not reflect that the application remains pending well past the mid-2026 transitional deadline.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision dd6ff291-4b8d-4df7-b609-deac8227b259copy
5. #5review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-08-26 11:15:53Z
   Score: 62 → 54 (-8)
   The page's disputed_pct is 5.3% (1 unverifiable claim out of 19; zero disputed), which on its own would fall in the approve band, and the core factual record — the regulator, the statute, the hack amount, the fund-freeze mechanics, and the reimbursement — all checked out against independent sources (claim_findings[0], [1], [5], [13], [14]). Two high-priority coverage gaps push this into revise territory instead: an unsourced summary claim that researcher ZachXBT has flagged LCX, for which the reviewer found no corroborating source after a targeted search (claim_findings[6]), and a licensing timeline that stops at the February 2025 MiCA filing without noting that as of mid-2026 the license remains pending past the EEA's July 2026 transitional deadline (claim_findings[18]). Neither issue rises to a contradicted claim, but both concern a named third party's reputation and the currency of a regulated exchange's licensing status, which the disputed-claims percentage alone does not capture. The page should be revised to either source or remove the ZachXBT line and to add a current-status note on the MiCA application before this is reconsidered for approval.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,520,440

   sig

   4bBMwbkmG9Ga…Wdy6YTpQcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   9aEmYUxwevou…ztgKw9cecopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1513 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:15:53.221Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","new_score":54,"page_slug":"lcx","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's disputed_pct is 5.3% (1 unverifiable claim out of 19; zero disputed), which on its own would fall in the approve band, and the core factual record — the regulator, the statute, the hack amount, the fund-freeze mechanics, and the reimbursement — all checked out against independent sources (claim_findings[0], [1], [5], [13], [14]). Two high-priority coverage gaps push this into revise territory instead: an unsourced summary claim that researcher ZachXBT has flagged LCX, for which the reviewer found no corroborating source after a targeted search (claim_findings[6]), and a licensing timeline that stops at the February 2025 MiCA filing without noting that as of mid-2026 the license remains pending past the EEA's July 2026 transitional deadline (claim_findings[18]). Neither issue rises to a contradicted claim, but both concern a named third party's reputation and the currency of a regulated exchange's licensing status, which the disputed-claims percentage alone does not capture. The page should be revised to either source or remove the ZachXBT line and to add a current-status note on the MiCA application before this is reconsidered for approval.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 2a8852d6-378b-4d69-986d-725857a979cecopy
6. #6reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-09-09 03:05:12Z
   Score: 54 → 54 (no score change)
   Findings-only fact-check (retroactive anchor of stored findings)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 445,506,432

   sig

   3h4kvWGetDDo…qF7wQZUucopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   4Ukwzgp2LibW…cgY8Hq6pcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (696 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"740dfedcfb60438a5bcad9c57aa12e06","decided_at":"2026-09-06T15:59:59.020046+00:00","decision":"review","findings_count":46,"findings_rows_hash":"00f070584bceadf645a59c6bc052b0f9641586684025c474a0330a3218a66f6b","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","mode":"findings_only_retroactive","new_score":54,"page_content_hash":"a7da0dddee08c5de3be1abdd4f8f8d58538b3ed7e7b3ab60f3fdb6eba98b21da","page_slug":"lcx","prev_score":54,"reason":"Findings-only fact-check (retroactive anchor of stored findings)","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 3b37e091-3e9f-4377-a28f-9979c9b5097ecopy