← Lendf.mereviewed 2026-11-01 · 10 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Lendf.me 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
5 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment
“CoinTelegraph and others reported that the word 'Compound' appeared four times in the deployed contract, indicating the fork was superficial.”
reviewerThe word 'Compound' reportedly appeared four times in the deployed contract, per CoinTelegraphThe cited CoinTelegraph article does not contain the 'four times' detail, so the attribution to it is unsupported. The inference 'indicating the fork was superficial' is the page's own. - #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Incident Details
“with the word 'Compound' reportedly appearing four times in the deployed contract”
reviewerSame 'Compound four times' detail in the Incident Details sectionHedged with 'reportedly' but no fetched source states it. - #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“dForce files a police report with Singapore authorities. The attacker's identifying metadata — including IP address and device fingerprint — is obtained from a CDN provider via subpoena.”
reviewerPolice report filed with Singapore authorities and attacker metadata obtained from a CDN provider by subpoena, on 2020-04-20The dForce Medium posts that would carry this were 403. Reporting widely says the data was allegedly obtained, and the page elsewhere hedges with 'allegedly'; the timeline states it as fact and the subpoena detail is unconfirmed. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence
“The full asset breakdown of stolen funds, as analyzed by PeckShield, totaled approximately $24,696,616”
reviewerPeckShield asset breakdown totaled about $24,696,616, against $25.2M stated elsewhereCould not read PeckShield. The page also gives two different totals ($25.2M and $24.7M) without explaining the gap. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment
“ZachXBT has flagged this entity as a risk reference in the context of DeFi exploit history.”
reviewerZachXBT has flagged this entity as a risk referenceNo citation, and I found nothing connecting ZachXBT to Lendf.me. The sentence is vague and should be sourced or removed.
partially supported
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Incident Details
“On April 19, 2020 at approximately 12:58 AM UTC (9:00 PM EST April 18), an attacker exploited a reentrancy vulnerability in Lendf.me to drain approximately $25.2 million in assets from 12 separate lending pools, representing 99.95% of the protocol's total value locked.”
reviewerThe exploit took place around 9 PM EST April 18 (April 19 UTC) and drained about $25 million via ERC-777 imBTC reentrancy across 12 marketsCore incident, timing and mechanism are confirmed. The 99.95% TVL figure and the exact 12:58 AM UTC minute were not found in the sources I could read (PeckShield and dForce Medium returned 403). - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence
“A secondary attack transaction documented by Quantstamp is 0x9743677ccf9a95f0a0521558d1bf853226f3a87c077d40cf3df73199ba211102.”
reviewerQuantstamp's linked transaction is described as a secondary attack transactionHash is correct; 'secondary' is the page's characterisation. The reply hash is confirmed as dForce's on-chain message to the hacker. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment
“The original Lendf.me contract is permanently deprecated and no longer operational.”
reviewerLendf.me was permanently deprecated and is no longer operationalSearch reporting says dForce closed Lendf.me service. The cited Medium post was blocked, so the 'permanent' wording is not directly confirmed. - #10[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Team and Background
“Following the hack, Mindao Yang stated in public posts that his own personal assets were also stolen in the attack and that he accepted personal responsibility for the incident.”
reviewerMindao Yang stated that his personal assets were also stolenPersonal responsibility is confirmed. The personal-assets part was not verifiable (Yang's Medium post not read).
confirmed
1 claimThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Team and Background
“The $1.5 million strategic funding round announced April 14, 2020 — five days before the hack — was led by Multicoin Capital with Huobi Capital and China Merchants Bank International (CMBI) as co-investors.”
reviewerdForce raised a $1.5 million round led by Multicoin Capital with Huobi Capital and CMBI, announced April 14, 2020Funding details match CoinDesk. The CoinDesk article does not mention Singapore registration or Yang's earlier career, which the page attributes to other sources.
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.