← MemeCorereviewed 2026-11-01 · 10 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read MemeCore 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
3 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Project Overview and Team
“the mainnet launched on February 12, 2025”
reviewerMainnet launched on February 12, 2025The cited Block release does not give the date; I did not find a source for the specific day. A September 2025 'has officially launched' announcement sits oddly with a February mainnet and deserves a check. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Team Responses
“CertiK Skynet gives MemeCore a security score of 88.12 and an AA rating”
reviewerCertiK Skynet gives a security score of 88.12 and AA ratingThe score is not visible in the fetched content; this says nothing about its accuracy. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Comparison to RaveDAO (RAVE)
“I ask the community to demand answers from Binance & Bybit about why M was listed for perps and why Kraken & Bitget listed M spot as these highly manipulated tokens continue to give our industry a bad reputation.”
reviewerCCN article quotes ZachXBT demanding answers from Binance and BybitCCN was blocked. The quote could not be checked word for word.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Exchange Due Diligence Concerns
“did not respond to CoinDesk's request for comment”
reviewerMemeCore did not respond to CoinDesk's request for comment and issued no public statement as of June 25, 2026Source says 'did not immediately respond', a weaker statement than 'did not respond'. The page's wording slightly overstates it. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Alleged Insider Supply Concentration
“CertiK's audit data reports a 'Major Holding Ratio' of approximately 87.4% among the top two wallet holders.”
reviewerCertiK data shows an 87.4% major holding ratio among the top two walletsThe live CertiK page shows a different figure (97.30%, 6 major holders). The 87.4% may be an earlier snapshot. The conclusion of extreme concentration holds, but the specific number and 'top two' framing are not currently verifiable. The summary repeats this figure. - #9[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Kraken Listing and Suspicious Withdrawal Patterns
“ZachXBT later flagged $7.9 million in alleged suspicious withdrawals from Kraken to 18 newly created wallet addresses”
reviewerZachXBT flagged $7.9M in suspicious Kraken withdrawals to 18 wallets holding about 11.7M MThe $7.9M and 18 addresses figures are corroborated in secondary search summaries. The cited CryptoTimes page was blocked (403). Details such as 200M M at TGE were not independently checked.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Tokenomics, Float and Liquidity
“On June 25, 2026, M fell approximately 74-80% within 24 hours, from a recent high of about $2.92 to an intraday low of $0.50-$0.51, trading near $0.68-$0.74 at the time of reporting.”
reviewerOn June 25, 2026 M fell roughly 74-80% in 24 hours from about $2.92 to a low of $0.50-$0.51, erasing about $3 billion with no identified catalystCoinDesk supports the range, price levels and the lack of a trigger. The page's range reflects the headline versus body discrepancy. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Kraken Listing and Suspicious Withdrawal Patterns
“The M token was listed for spot trading on Kraken on July 3, 2025, alongside simultaneous listings on Binance Alpha, Bitget, BingX, HTX and Hashkey.”
reviewerM listed on Kraken July 3, 2025 alongside Binance Alpha, Bitget, BingX, HTX and HashkeyMatches the press release. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Project Overview and Team
“The Block carried a press release announcing the Layer 1 launch in September 2025.”
reviewerThe Block carried the Layer 1 launch press release in September 2025Date confirmed. The release itself gives no mainnet date, so the February 12, 2025 launch date needs another source. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Team Responses
“It identified 16 findings: zero critical, one major (a design issue, acknowledged but not resolved), two medium (resolved), seven minor (resolved) and four informational (resolved).”
reviewerCertiK audit: 16 findings, zero critical, one major acknowledged, two medium, seven minor, four informational, two centralization partially resolved; final revision May 19, 2025; team not KYC'dCounts match. Note the sum of 0+1+2+7+4 is 14, with the 2 centralization findings making 16.
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.