Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read LeetSwap 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
2 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #4[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“On August 1, 2023, shortly after Base's mainnet opened to all users, an attacker exploited”
reviewerBase opened to all public users on July 31, 2023 (summary and Background), but Aug 9 elsewhere.Internal contradiction. The page's own section 7 and timeline put public opening at Aug 9, after the exploit. I did not independently fetch a source for the Aug 9 date.Proposed correction (not yet applied)On August 1, 2023, shortly after Base's mainnet opened to builders, an attacker exploited - #5[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Background and Protocol Overview
“At its peak on July 31, 2023 — just as Base opened to public users — LeetSwap reported”
reviewerAt peak on July 31 'just as Base opened to public users'.Same internal contradiction (public launch Aug 9 per the page's own section and timeline).Proposed correction (not yet applied)At its peak on July 31, 2023 — while Base was open only to builders — LeetSwap reported
unverifiable
4 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Team Response and Fund Recovery
“requesting the return of all stolen funds minus 50 ETH (~$92,000, approximately 15% of the total) as an implied bounty”
reviewerThe team publicly asked the attacker to return all funds except 50 ETH (~$92,000, ~15%).The first cited source does not contain it. Not confirmed from the sources I read. - #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT Flagging and Community Reaction
“ZachXBT publicly flagged LeetSwap in connection with the August 2023 exploit.”
reviewerZachXBT commented with a quote about North Korea and it was tied to the LeetSwap exploit.No source I read supports this. 'Flagged' overstates a sarcastic remark the page admits is not an attribution. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Base network opens to all public users. LeetSwap's white-hat recovery operations yield 314 ETH from at-risk pools for distribution to liquidity providers.”
reviewerWhite-hat operations recovered 314 ETH, dated 2023-08-09.I could not confirm the 314 ETH figure or the 2023-08-09 date for it. The timeline entry has no source. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Post-Exploit Status and Current TVL
“No regulatory action or law enforcement investigation has been publicly announced in connection with the exploit or the attacker's identity.”
reviewerTeam unidentified, no audit confirmed, no regulatory action.Absence claim. I found nothing contradicting it.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Ecosystem Context: Base Launch Week Incidents
“when its deployer withdrew approximately $12.5 million in ETH from liquidity pools”
reviewerThe BALD rug pull involved about $12.5M withdrawn from liquidity.The $12.5M figure is not in the cited CoinDesk article. The Block reports 6,800 ETH was pulled from LeetSwap's BALD pool, which is relevant to LeetSwap.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“drain approximately 342 ETH (~$630,000) from multiple liquidity pools”
reviewerOn Aug 1, 2023 an attacker drained about 342 ETH (~$630,000) from LeetSwap pools.CoinDesk gives about 340 ETH and about $630K, which matches within rounding. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: August 2023 Smart Contract Exploit
“LeetSwap's TVL collapsed from $41.2 million on July 31 to approximately $7.17 million on August 1, an 83% decline.”
reviewerTVL peaked at $41.2M on July 31 and fell to about $7M on Aug 1.Matches CoinDesk.