← LendHubreviewed 2026-11-01 · 11 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read LendHub 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
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: The January 2023 Exploit
“The attacker exploited this discrepancy by depositing HBSV tokens into the old market to receive inflated IBSV tokens, then borrowing assets from the new market, then redeeming HBSV back in the old market. This cycle was repeated to drain assets — including HDOT tokens — from the new market.”
reviewerAttacker deposited HBSV tokens in old market and drained HDOT from the new marketMechanism broadly matches Halborn, but the specific tokens HBSV and HDOT were not found in fetched sources. CertiK page not fetched. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Collapse and Current Status
“Following the January 2023 exploit, LendHub's Total Value Locked (TVL) collapsed from approximately $6 million to $90,305.”
reviewerTVL collapsed from about $6M to $90,305No fetched source gives the $90,305 figure. The $6M stolen is also not obviously the pre-hack TVL.
partially supported
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Fund Movement and Laundering
“Within hours of the exploit, over 1,100 ETH (approximately $1.79 million at the time) was sent to Tornado Cash, a sanctioned cryptocurrency mixer.”
reviewerOver 1,100 ETH (~$1.79M) sent to Tornado Cash within hoursThe 1,100 ETH figure matches, but fetched outlets give about $1.5M rather than $1.79M (CryptoPotato not fetched; may use a different price). Also Tornado Cash is described as currently sanctioned; I did not verify its current OFAC status, which may have changed. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“The exploiter received 100 ETH from Tornado Cash on Ethereum and began staging the attack.”
reviewerExploiter received 100 ETH from Tornado Cash on 2023-01-11 and began stagingFunding is supported; the specific date 2023-01-11 was not confirmed in fetched sources. - #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“LendHub acknowledged the exploit via Twitter. SlowMist, CertiK, and Halborn published analyses.”
reviewerScam LendHub acknowledged exploit via Twitter on 2023-01-13; SlowMist, CertiK and Halborn published analyses that dayTwitter acknowledgement was reported by Jan 13, but Halborn's analysis is dated Jan 19, so the entry's date does not fit all three analyses. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“HECO chain announced official retirement; users urged to convert and redeem assets by January 10, 2025.”
reviewerHECO retirement announced 2024-11-10Deadline confirmed. The timeline date 2024-11-10 appears to be the snapshot date, not the announcement date; the true announcement date was not established, so no correction is proposed.
confirmed
5 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: The January 2023 Exploit
“On January 12, 2023, LendHub suffered a critical exploit resulting in losses of approximately $6 million.”
reviewerLendHub was exploited on January 12, 2023 for approximately $6 millionDate and amount consistent across Halborn, The Block, crypto.news and Cointelegraph. DefiLlama hacks entry lists 1/16/2023, a minor discrepancy in that database. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: The January 2023 Exploit
“Security firm Halborn noted that 'the attacker did not need to exploit smart contract vulnerabilities to carry out this attack.”
reviewerHalborn quote on no smart contract vulnerabilitiesQuote found in Halborn article. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Movement and Laundering
“On February 27, 2023, blockchain security firms PeckShield and Beosin identified a further transfer of 2,415 ETH (approximately $3.85 million) into Tornado Cash from a wallet connected to the exploit.”
reviewerFeb 27, 2023: 2,415 ETH (~$3.85M) to Tornado Cash flagged by PeckShield and Beosin; total about 3,515 ETH / $5.7MConfirmed by Cointelegraph, which is in sources_used. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Marketing vs. Security Reality
“Prior to the exploit, LendHub marketed itself as 'the safest decentralized lending platform' for cross-chain lending.”
reviewerMarketed as the safest decentralized lending platformSupported by The Block. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Collapse and Current Status
“As of 2025, DefiLlama reports LendHub's TVL as $0, and the protocol is listed among dead or inactive adapters.”
reviewerDefiLlama reports TVL of $0 and protocol is deprecatedSupported by DefiLlama search result (snippet only).
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.