Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
Sign in
← LCXreviewed 2026-09-06 · 46 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read LCX 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.

unverifiable 5stale 2link rot 6partially supported 3confirmed 308 corrections pending · 0 applied

unverifiable

5 claims

No source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.

  1. #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the summary
    “The exchange is flagged by ZachXBT”
    reviewerLCX is flagged by ZachXBT.No section source or accepted submission cites this claim, and web search turned up no ZachXBT commentary on LCX specifically. Could not confirm or refute.
  2. #26[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “LCX operates under MiCAR transition arrangements and has stated a target compliance date of December 31, 2025.”
    reviewerLCX operates under MiCAR transition arrangements and has stated a target compliance date of December 31, 2025.Plausible given the general MiCA transition calendar, but no LCX-specific statement of this target date could be located.
  3. #32[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: User Complaints and Platform Conduct
    “Independent reviews note the platform's low trading volumes relative to its marketing positioning.”
    reviewerIndependent reviews note the platform's low trading volumes relative to its marketing positioning.Could not independently verify this characterization or its sourcing within the time available; not contradicted, but not confirmed either.
    citedtradersunion.com/reviews/lcx-com/
  4. #33[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: User Complaints and Platform Conduct
    “LCX has publicly attributed processing delays to regulatory and KYC compliance requirements.”
    reviewerLCX has publicly attributed processing delays to regulatory and KYC compliance requirements.No specific public LCX statement making this attribution was located; plausible but unconfirmed.
  5. #40[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “Liechtenstein implements MiCAR; LCX files formal MiCA license application.”
    reviewerIn February 2025, following Liechtenstein's implementation of MiCAR, LCX filed a formal MiCA license application.The window for formal applications opening is confirmed, but no source was found confirming LCX actually filed the formal application in February 2025 specifically, as this timeline entry states.

stale

2 claims

The claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.

  1. #28[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: User Complaints and Platform Conduct
    “LCX carries a 'Poor' rating of approximately 2.5–3.3 out of 5 on Trustpilot based on 82 reviews as of available data.”
    reviewerLCX carries a 'Poor' rating of approximately 2.5-3.3 out of 5 on Trustpilot based on 82 reviews.The 2.5/82-review figure appears accurate as of an earlier snapshot (matches figures still repeated in some aggregator summaries), but the live Trustpilot page now shows a lower rating (2.1/5) and 20 additional reviews (102 total).
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    LCX carries a 'Poor' rating of approximately 2.1 out of 5 on Trustpilot based on 102 reviews as of available data.
    citedwww.trustpilot.com/review/lcx.com
  2. #36[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Native LCX Token
    “Market capitalization was approximately $30 million USD as of early 2026 data, ranking the token around #569–636 on CoinMarketCap.”
    reviewerLCX token market capitalization was approximately $30 million as of early 2026, ranking #569-636 on CoinMarketCap.The rank estimate (#614) falls within the page's stated range, but the $30M market cap figure is superseded by current data showing roughly $23M, consistent with a documented price decline through 2026.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    Market capitalization was approximately $23 million USD as of September 2026 data, ranking the token around #614 on CoinMarketCap.
    citedcoinmarketcap.com/currencies/lcx/

partially supported

3 claims

The cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.

  1. #12[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “drained approximately $7.94 million in crypto assets”
    reviewerThe $7.94M loss figure is supported by all five cited sources for this section, including Cointelegraph and BeInCrypto.The $7.94M figure itself is confirmed by LCX's own incident report and TRM Labs, but two of the five sources cited for this section actually report a different (earlier, lower) total and don't support the $7.94M number as stated.
    citedcointelegraph.com/news/lcx-loses-6-8m-in…ereum-blockchainbeincrypto.com/lcx-exchange-hacked-6-8m-…-hackers-wallet/
  2. #22[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “The registered service categories include exchange service provider, token depositary, key depositary, price service provider, identity service provider, token generator, and token issuer.”
    reviewerThe registered service categories include exchange service provider, token depositary, key depositary, price service provider, identity service provider, token generator, and token issuer.The page lists only seven named categories, merging 'token issuer on its own' and 'token issuer on behalf of clients' into a single 'token issuer' item, which undercounts the eight registrations the same sentence set claims.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-receives-8-blockchain-re…y-liechtenstein/
  3. #27[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “The exchange's CEO and founder is Monty C. M. Metzger, a serial entrepreneur who founded his first company in 1998 and has been a member of the World Economic Forum.”
    reviewerLCX's CEO Monty C. M. Metzger founded his first company in 1998 and has been a member of the World Economic Forum.The WEF association is real but its exact nature (member vs. speaker/'New Champion') varies by source. The 1998 first-company founding date could not be independently corroborated.

confirmed

30 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
    “holding eight registrations under the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) pursuant to the Token and Trusted Technology Service Provider Act (TVTG)”
    reviewerLCX holds eight registrations under the Liechtenstein FMA pursuant to the TVTG.Confirmed by both the company's own announcement and the PRNewswire wire release.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-receives-8-blockchain-re…y-liechtenstein/www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lcx-rec…n-301199446.html
  2. #2[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
    “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”
    reviewerLCX suffered a January 2022 hot wallet compromise of approximately $7.94M, laundered through Tornado Cash.Figure and laundering method independently confirmed by LCX's own report and TRM Labs' forensic writeup.
    citedwww.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/www.trmlabs.com/post/exploit-radar-lcx-hot-wallet-hack
  3. #3[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
    “LCX subsequently used its own funds to compensate affected users and cooperated with international law enforcement to freeze an alleged 60% of stolen assets.”
    reviewerLCX compensated affected users from its own funds and cooperated with law enforcement to freeze an alleged 60% of stolen assets.The 60% figure is LCX's own claim, not an independently audited figure, but it is consistently reported across outlets and no contradicting figure was found.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/
  4. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “On January 8, 2022, between 11:23 PM and 11:37 PM CET, an unauthorized actor gained access to one of LCX's Ethereum hot wallets and drained approximately $7.94 million in crypto assets.”
    reviewerThe hack occurred January 8, 2022 between 11:23-11:37 PM CET.GMT/CET time conversion is consistent across TRM Labs and LCX's own report.
    citedwww.trmlabs.com/post/exploit-radar-lcx-hot-wallet-hackwww.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/
  5. #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “The attacker targeted multiple tokens in a coordinated sweep: approximately 17.25 million LCX tokens ($2.47M), 3.44 million USDC ($3.44M), 761,237 EURe (~$865K), 101,250 SAND (~$486K), 162.68 ETH (~$503K), 669 QNT (~$116K), 1,848 LINK (~$49K), 4,820 ENJ (~$11K), and 4.76 MKR (~$10K).”
    reviewerPer-token breakdown of the ~$7.94M stolen (LCX, USDC, EURe, SAND, ETH, QNT, LINK, ENJ, MKR).Verbatim match against LCX's official incident report figures.
    citedwww.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/
  6. #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “All stolen USDC was converted to native ETH within 16 minutes using DeFi protocols; the entire conversion of all stolen assets was completed within 45 minutes of the initial transfer.”
    reviewerStolen USDC converted to ETH within 16 minutes; full conversion completed within 45 minutes.Confirmed verbatim against TRM Labs' forensic timeline.
    citedwww.trmlabs.com/post/exploit-radar-lcx-hot-wallet-hack
  7. #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “By 11:12 PM GMT, converted ETH was deposited into Tornado Cash using 100, 10, and 1 ETH contracts, completing the laundering operation within approximately 1.5 hours of the initial theft.”
    reviewerConverted ETH was deposited into Tornado Cash by 11:12 PM GMT using 100/10/1 ETH contracts, laundering complete within ~1.5 hours.Confirmed.
    citedwww.trmlabs.com/post/exploit-radar-lcx-hot-wallet-hack
  8. #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “The specific attack vector was not publicly disclosed by LCX; blockchain analysts concluded the most likely cause was a private key compromise of the hot wallet.”
    reviewerAttack vector not publicly disclosed; analysts concluded likely private key compromise.Confirmed; LCX itself never disclosed a specific vector, consistent with the hedged phrasing used.
    citedwww.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/hacken.io/industry-news-and-insights/lcx…ck-january-2022/
  9. #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “The exchange stated that its main server infrastructure, data storage, wallet management, and vaults were not compromised.”
    reviewerLCX stated its main server infrastructure, data storage, wallet management, and vaults were not compromised.Verbatim match to LCX's own statement.
    citedwww.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/
  10. #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2022 Hot Wallet Hack
    “No attribution of the attack to the Lazarus Group or any specific threat actor has been confirmed by credible sources.”
    reviewerNo attribution of the attack to the Lazarus Group or any specific threat actor has been confirmed.Absence-of-evidence claim confirmed by the lack of any credible attribution in searched reporting.
  11. #13[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “Following the hack, LCX engaged law enforcement in Liechtenstein, Ireland, Spain, and the United States, as well as blockchain analytics firms including Elliptic.”
    reviewerLCX engaged law enforcement in Liechtenstein, Ireland, Spain, and the US, and analytics firm Elliptic.Confirmed, consistent with LCX's own update page and secondary reporting (e.g. CoinGeek) naming the same jurisdictions.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/
  12. #14[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “approximately 611,000 EURe (~$692K) frozen on-chain via partner Monerium”
    reviewerApproximately 611,000 EURe (~$692K) frozen on-chain via Monerium.Confirmed by both LCX's own page and an independent case-study writeup.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/lcxexch…otwallethack.php
  13. #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “500 ETH frozen at Coinbase Europe pursuant to a Liechtenstein court order executed through Irish law enforcement”
    reviewer500 ETH frozen at Coinbase Europe pursuant to a Liechtenstein court order executed through Irish law enforcement.Confirmed.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/
  14. #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “1,274,249 USDC frozen by the Centre Consortium based on an order from the New York Supreme Court”
    reviewer1,274,249 USDC frozen by the Centre Consortium based on an order from the New York Supreme Court.Confirmed.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/
  15. #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “LCX's legal counsel filed a complaint in the New York Supreme Court on June 1, 2022.”
    reviewerLCX's legal counsel filed a complaint in the New York Supreme Court on June 1, 2022.Date confirmed.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-ne…-via-nft-2835925
  16. #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “a temporary restraining order (TRO) was served on the anonymous defendant via NFT airdrop — described as the first instance of legal process served via NFT in history”
    reviewerA TRO was served on the anonymous defendant via NFT airdrop, the first instance of legal process served via NFT in history.Widely corroborated across independent legal and crypto-news outlets.
    citednftnewstoday.com/2022/06/17/first-law-fi…straining-order/www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-ne…-via-nft-2835925
  17. #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “LCX claimed approximately 60% of stolen funds were ultimately frozen through these combined actions.”
    reviewerLCX claimed approximately 60% of stolen funds were ultimately frozen through combined recovery actions.Confirmed as LCX's own self-reported figure, corroborated by secondary reporting.
    citedwww.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/
  18. #20[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Recovery and Legal Actions
    “LCX used its own funds to compensate all affected users, and full platform operations resumed by January 28, 2022.”
    reviewerLCX compensated all affected users from its own funds and full operations resumed by January 28, 2022.Confirmed in substance; exact January 28 date not independently found in a non-LCX source but is consistent with the reported late-January resumption.
    citedwww.lcx.com/hot-wallet-incident-report/quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/lcxexch…otwallethack.php
  19. #21[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “LCX AG is incorporated in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, and holds eight registrations from the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) issued on December 30, 2020, under the Token and Trusted Technology Service Provider Act (TVTG).”
    reviewerLCX AG holds eight registrations from the FMA issued December 30, 2020 under the TVTG.Confirmed.
    citedwww.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lcx-rec…n-301199446.html
  20. #23[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “The exchange is externally audited by Grant Thornton.”
    reviewerThe exchange is externally audited by Grant Thornton.Confirmed via LCX's own disclosure pages.
  21. #24[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “In October 2022 LCX relaunched its exchange platform with updated infrastructure under continued FMA oversight.”
    reviewerIn October 2022 LCX relaunched its exchange platform with updated infrastructure under continued FMA oversight.Confirmed.
    citedwww.crowdfundinsider.com/2022/10/197208-…arket-authority/
  22. #25[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status and Licensing
    “In December 2024 LCX filed a pre-application for a Pan-European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) license in Liechtenstein; formal MiCA applications in Liechtenstein opened February 1, 2025.”
    reviewerIn December 2024 LCX filed a pre-application for a MiCA license in Liechtenstein; formal applications opened February 1, 2025.Content confirmed via wire-service mirrors, though the page's own cited GlobeNewswire URL is dead (see separate link_rot finding).
    citedwww.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/…echtenstein.html
  23. #29[confirmed][no action needed]in section: User Complaints and Platform Conduct
    “These complaints are consistent across Trustpilot and Scamadviser (rated 2.9/5).”
    reviewerComplaints are consistent across Trustpilot and Scamadviser (rated 2.9/5).Confirmed via independent search of Scamadviser data.
    citedwww.cybercriminal.com/132701/lcx-com-tru…es-and-high-risk
  24. #30[confirmed][no action needed]in section: User Complaints and Platform Conduct
    “The most recurring complaint categories include multi-day withdrawal delays (users report waits exceeding one month for sub-€200 withdrawals), unexplained account freezes attributed to alleged 'multiple accounts' policy violations, ghosted KYC verification requests, unpaid referral and rewards bounties, and unresponsive customer support.”
    reviewerRecurring complaint categories: withdrawal delays, account freezes, ghosted KYC, unpaid referral bounties, unresponsive support.Confirmed as an accurate characterization of the review corpus.
    citedwww.trustpilot.com/review/lcx.com
  25. #31[confirmed][no action needed]in section: User Complaints and Platform Conduct
    “One reviewer alleged their account was blocked and they received legal threats after posting critical commentary about LCX on Twitter.”
    reviewerOne reviewer alleged their account was blocked and they received legal threats after posting critical commentary about LCX on Twitter.Matches a specific, identifiable review; correctly hedged as a single reviewer's allegation rather than a verified fact.
    citedwww.trustpilot.com/review/lcx.com
  26. #34[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Native LCX Token
    “LCX operates a native ERC-20 utility token (ticker: LCX) with a maximum and total supply of 950,000,000 tokens, of which approximately 949,224,759 are in circulation as of available data.”
    reviewerLCX token has a max/total supply of 950,000,000 with ~949,224,759 in circulation.Confirmed within rounding tolerance.
    citedcoinmarketcap.com/currencies/lcx/www.coingecko.com/en/coins/lcx
  27. #35[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Native LCX Token
    “The token grants holders up to 50% reductions in trading fees on the LCX platform, access to launchpad offerings, and staking participation on the planned Liberty Chain mainnet.”
    reviewerThe token grants up to 50% trading fee reductions, launchpad access, and staking on the planned Liberty Chain mainnet.Confirmed via LCX's own token utility documentation.
  28. #37[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Native LCX Token
    “The token's fully-circulating supply structure means there are no further scheduled unlocks.”
    reviewerThe token's fully-circulating supply structure means there are no further scheduled unlocks.Confirmed; vesting schedules concluded years before the current data snapshot.
  29. #38[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Posture Pre- and Post-Hack
    “Prior to the January 2022 hack, LCX had engaged cybersecurity firm Hacken for a security assessment between March and October 2021, receiving a positive security score, and launched a bug bounty program on HackenProof in September 2021.”
    reviewerLCX engaged Hacken for a security assessment (March-October 2021, positive score) and launched a HackenProof bug bounty in September 2021.Confirmed via Hacken's own published retrospective (accessed indirectly through search due to bot-blocking on direct fetch).
    citedhacken.io/industry-news-and-insights/lcx…ck-january-2022/
  30. #39[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Posture Pre- and Post-Hack
    “Post-hack, LCX rebuilt its infrastructure with enhanced security measures and additional wallet management controls.”
    reviewerPost-hack, LCX rebuilt its infrastructure with enhanced security measures and additional wallet management controls.Confirmed in substance, consistent with the October 2022 relaunch reporting.
    citedwww.crowdfundinsider.com/2022/10/197208-…arket-authority/
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.