← Nemo Yield Tradingreviewed 2026-11-03 · 8 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Nemo Yield Trading 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.
- #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Pre-Exploit Audit Failures and Developer Misconduct
“A developer submitted code containing unaudited features to auditor MoveBit while mixing previously audited fixes with unreviewed functionality, without disclosing the new additions to the auditors.”
reviewerA developer submitted code to MoveBitMoveBit and the January 2025 timing were not found in the Cointelegraph article. Other cited sources (The Block, Cryptonews) were not fetched, so this may be supported elsewhere. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Compensation Program and NEOM Debt Token
“As of mid-2026, social media reports indicate the vault migration process was completed and users could claim NEOM tokens, though the NEOM token's market value was reported to be trading below its $1.00 peg, meaning victims have not been made fully whole.”
reviewerNEOM trades below peg and vault migration was completed, per a social media postThe only support is an X post I could not read. The post ID 1998698715125571968 suggests a December 2025 date, which would not fit 'mid-2026' (unverified inference).
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: September 2025 Exploit ($2.6 Million)
“Stolen assets were subsequently bridged from Sui to Ethereum via the Wormhole CCTP cross-chain transfer protocol.”
reviewerStolen assets were bridged from Sui to Ethereum via Wormhole CCTPCoinDesk confirms bridging to Ethereum but does not name Wormhole. PeckShield's route cited by other outlets was via Arbitrum and Circle. Wormhole CCTP was not verified in the sources I fetched. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: September 2025 Exploit ($2.6 Million)
“The protocol's total value locked (TVL) collapsed from approximately $6.3 million to $1.57 million as users withdrew over $3.8 million in USDC and SUI following the breach.”
reviewerTVL fell from about $6.3M to $1.57MBroadly consistent. The exact figures differ slightly between outlets, and I did not find the $3.8M withdrawal figure.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“A security auditor had flagged a related vulnerability 27 days before the attack, which the team acknowledged it failed to address in time.”
reviewerAsymptotic flagged the vulnerability on Aug 11, 2025, 27 days before the Sept 7 exploit; the team admitted it did not address it in timeCointelegraph confirms the Aug 11 date and the 27-day gap. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Pre-Exploit Audit Failures and Developer Misconduct
“The single-signature deployment mechanism used by the developer was identified as a specific governance failure that allowed unreviewed code to reach mainnet.”
reviewerLoss of about $2.59-2.6M attributed to a single developer's unaudited code, single-signature deployment, no confirmation hash usedConsistent with Cointelegraph. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: September 2025 Exploit ($2.6 Million)
“On September 7, 2025 at approximately 16:00 UTC, Nemo Protocol was exploited for approximately $2.4 to $2.6 million in USDC and SUI tokens.”
reviewerExploit date and amount (Sept 7, 2025, about $2.4-2.6M); CoinDesk dates the article Sept 8The date and amount range are consistent. I did not verify the 16:00 UTC timestamp. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Overview
“As of mid-2026, the protocol shows zero TVL and zero active fee or revenue activity across all tracked timeframes on DeFiLlama.”
reviewerZero TVL as of mid-2026 on DeFiLlamaMatches the DeFiLlama data summarized in search results. I did not open the page directly.
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.