← UNUS SED LEOreviewed 2026-11-02 · 10 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read UNUS SED LEO 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 partially supported 3 confirmed 50 corrections pending · 0 applied

unverifiable

2 claims

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

#8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“U.S. authorities begin transferring recovered 2016 hack BTC; 80% earmarked for LEO buybacks”
reviewerU.S. authorities began transferring recovered 2016 hack BTC in 2024The 2024 date (stored as 2024-01-01 in date_original) is not supported by the cited source. Search results point to a court restitution request in January 2025, and I could not confirm a final order or transfer date. The entry should be checked or dropped rather than rewritten.
citedcryptoticker.io/en/what-is-unus-sed-leo-…token-explained/
#10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Origin: Corporate Recapitalization After $850M Loss
“a payment processor whose funds were subsequently seized by governments including Poland, the U.K., Portugal, and the U.S.”
reviewerFunds seized by Poland, the U.K., Portugal, and the U.S.I did not locate a source for the list of four governments within the time spent. This is a lack of verification, not a contradiction.
citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2019/04/25/bitf…osecutors-allege

partially supported

3 claims

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

#3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“The LEO smart contract was alleged by Cointelligence to contain deliberate flaws enabling fraud.”
reviewerA Cointelligence allegation that the LEO contract has deliberate flaws enabling fraudThe allegation is accurately attributed, but it rests on one secondary article and no audit or follow-up. The page does not say it is an unproven 2019 claim.
citedcryptonews.net/news/security/180450/
#4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“LEO surged past $10, entering top 10 by market cap (~$9.3B).”
reviewerLEO price over $10 and market cap ~$9.3B as of April 2026, top 10Matches the cited April 2026 snapshot, but the summary gives no date. Later aggregator readings are lower and trackers disagree, so it reads as current when it is a point-in-time figure.
citedcryptoticker.io/en/what-is-unus-sed-leo-…token-explained/
#5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: 2016 Hack Recovery and Buyback Mechanism
“These mechanisms have driven LEO from its initial $1 to over $10, entering the top 10 by market cap (~$9.3B as of April 2026).”
reviewerMarket cap ~$9.3B as of April 2026 and top-10 rankDated correctly to the source. 'These mechanisms have driven' is a causal claim the source does not establish, and other trackers show lower and conflicting rank and cap.
citedcryptoticker.io/en/what-is-unus-sed-leo-…token-explained/

confirmed

5 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

#1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“Bitfinex and Tether settled with the NYAG in February 2021 for $18.5M, admitting no wrongdoing.”
reviewerBitfinex and Tether settled with the NYAG in February 2021 for $18.5M, admitting no wrongdoingCoinDesk confirms amount, date and no admission of wrongdoing.
citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2021/02/23/ny-a…-185m-settlement
#2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: NYAG Settlement
“Both entities were barred from trading or servicing New York customers.”
reviewerBoth entities were barred from trading or servicing New York customersSupported by the NYAG release. The same release describes the quarterly reporting as about segregation of corporate and client funds, while CoinDesk describes it as reserve composition; the page follows CoinDesk.
citedag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-ge…itfinexs-illegal
#6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: 2016 Hack Recovery and Buyback Mechanism
“Additionally, iFinex commits at least 27% of consolidated monthly revenue to LEO buybacks and burns.”
revieweriFinex commits at least 27% of consolidated monthly revenue to LEO buybacks and burnsSupported by the cited source and consistent with other search results.
citedcryptoticker.io/en/what-is-unus-sed-leo-…token-explained/
#7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: 2016 Hack Recovery and Buyback Mechanism
“Per LEO's whitepaper, 80% of recovered funds must be used to repurchase and burn LEO tokens.”
reviewer80% of recovered funds must be used to repurchase and burn LEO per whitepaperSupported.
citedcryptoticker.io/en/what-is-unus-sed-leo-…token-explained/
#9[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“NYAG alleges Bitfinex covered $850M loss using Tether reserves”
reviewerNYAG alleged Bitfinex covered the $850M loss with Tether reserves, 2019-04-25Consistent with the 2021 CoinDesk and NYAG sources.
citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2019/04/25/bitf…osecutors-allege

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.