← Makina Financereviewed 2026-10-27 · 11 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Makina Finance 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.
- #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: MEV Interception and Fund Distribution
“In aggregate, over $3.65 million was reportedly recovered and distributed to affected users, about 89% of user losses; Makina and Dialectic committed to a revenue-share restitution plan for the remaining 11% shortfall.”
reviewerOver $3.65 million recovered and distributed to users, ~89% of losses, with revenue-share restitution for the remaining 11%Neither the official reactivation post nor Rekt gives the $3.65M or 89% figure, and a web search found nothing. The summary repeats it. The coinheadlines, X and Phemex sources were not read. - #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Funding, Investors and Team
“Makina Finance closed a $3 million strategic funding round in June 2025”
reviewerMakina raised $3M in June 2025 (CypherHunter)Source blocked; not scored. Several independent outlets are cited (MEXC, CMO Intern) and were not fetched.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: MEV Interception and Fund Distribution
“received approximately 1,023 ETH (about $3.3 million)”
reviewerAddress 0xbed2... received about 1,023 ETH (~$3.3M)Dollar value matches, but the primary cited source gives 1,062 ETH rather than 1,023 ETH. The page could note the discrepancy.
confirmed
8 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Audit History and Scope Gap
“Cantina's scope explicitly excluded "Losses caused by oracle price/liquidity pool manipulation, where an unchecked synchronous deposit is used"”
reviewerCantina's scope excluded oracle price/liquidity pool manipulation via unchecked synchronous depositRekt quotes the exclusion exactly as the page does. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Audit History and Scope Gap
“Makina Finance underwent six security reviews between July and November 2025, before the exploit.”
reviewerSix security reviews between July and November 2025; Rekt counts two ChainSecurity audits in September 2025Matches Rekt's list, including Enigma Dark, SigmaPrime, 2x ChainSecurity, Cantina CTF (Sep 18 to Oct 15) and OtterSec. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2026 Oracle Manipulation Exploit
“On January 20, 2026, at 03:40:35 UTC (Ethereum block 24,273,362), Makina Finance was exploited for approximately 1,299 ETH, valued at about $4.13 million.”
reviewerAbout 1,299 ETH (~$4.13M) drained using about 280 million USDC in flash loans; exploit on January 20, 2026Amount and date supported. Block and second-level time not independently checked. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: MEV Interception and Fund Distribution
“while Rekt News reports that as of January 22 no funds had been returned”
reviewerReports differ on whether funds were returned by January 22; Rekt says none returnedAccurately attributed to Rekt. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Overview and Operator Model
“the protocol held approximately $100 million in total value locked, according to DeFiLlama data cited by Cryptopolitan”
reviewerAbout $100M TVL, per DeFiLlama cited by Cryptopolitan; Cryptopolitan dates mainnet launch to February 2025Supported; the February 2025 date is inferred from 'last February'. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Incident Response, Fund Recovery and Restitution
“The upgrade introduced a "restricted accounting mode" that limits valuation updates to Operators, security councils and pre-registered entities”
reviewerv1.1 upgrade added restricted accounting mode and max price change parameters; LayerZero OFT bridge support; post-mortem unpublishedMatches the official post. The ChainSecurity audit of v1.1 was not visible in the fetched extract. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: MEV Interception and Fund Distribution
“users holding over $100,000 in DUSD required to complete AML/KYC screening via Discord”
reviewerUsers over $100,000 in DUSD must complete AML/KYC via DiscordSupported. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2026 Oracle Manipulation Exploit
“one account names 0x2F934B0Fd5c4f99BAb37d47604a3a1AEADEF1CCc as the attacker”
reviewerRekt names 0x2F934... as the original attackerRekt treats 0x935b... as the MEV searcher, not the original attacker. The page's 'reports differ' framing is reasonable, but Rekt's attribution is the better-sourced one.
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.