← Ooki Protocolreviewed 2026-10-28 · 8 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Ooki Protocol 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.
partially supported
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Default Judgment and Court-Ordered Shutdown (June 2023)
“said the ruling showed that 'DeFi is not a regulatory-free zone' and described the outcome as 'a wake-up call' that DAO structures cannot shield founders from regulatory accountability”
reviewerMcGinley said the ruling showed 'DeFi is not a regulatory-free zone' and called it 'a wake-up call'.The 'wake-up call' quote is real; the 'DeFi is not a regulatory-free zone' quotation was not found in the cited release or in search. Quoted wording attributed to a named official is unsupported. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“CFTC Enforcement Director Ian McGinley says the ruling shows 'DeFi is not a regulatory-free zone'; Ooki DAO announces it will shut down.”
reviewerTimeline entry attributes the 'DeFi is not a regulatory-free zone' quote to McGinley and says Ooki DAO announced it would shut down.Same unsupported quote as sections[5], plus an unsupported 'announces' framing; the cited article reports a court order. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Default Judgment and Court-Ordered Shutdown (June 2023)
“CoinTelegraph reported that Ooki DAO then announced it would shut down.”
reviewerCoinTelegraph reported that Ooki DAO announced it would shut down.The article's headline suggests a shutdown but the fetched text attributes it to the court order, not a voluntary announcement. Low-moderate confidence given the fetch tool summarizes. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: DAO Liability Class Action (Sarcuni et al. v. bZx DAO)
“The protocol is no longer operational and its total value locked collapsed to effectively zero.”
reviewerOoki protocol is defunct, TVL effectively zero, and OOKI near-zero valuation.Court-ordered shutdown is supported. The TVL figure was not independently checked (no DefiLlama fetch); the token still trades.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: CFTC Action Against bZeroX and Charges Against Ooki DAO (September 2022)
“It imposed a $250,000 civil monetary penalty.”
reviewerCFTC settled with bZeroX LLC and founders for $250,000 on Sept 22, 2022, for the period June 1, 2019 to Aug 23, 2021, and charged Ooki DAO in N.D. Cal.Penalty, dates, charges, forum and the 'enforcement-proof' characterization match the CFTC release. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: CFTC Action Against bZeroX and Charges Against Ooki DAO (September 2022)
“One sitting CFTC commissioner publicly dissented on procedural grounds.”
reviewerOne sitting CFTC commissioner dissented publicly.The dissent exists; 'procedural grounds' was not independently checked. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Default Judgment and Court-Ordered Shutdown (June 2023)
“ordered it to pay a civil monetary penalty of $643,542; imposed permanent trading and registration bans;”
reviewerDefault judgment entered by Judge Orrick with $643,542 penalty, permanent bans and website shutdown order; date is June 8 or 9, 2023.Figures and bans confirmed. The page's June 8 or 9 hedge is accurate. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: November 2021 Private Key Compromise (~$55 Million)
“On November 12, 2021, Kaspersky attributed the attack to BlueNoroff, a financially motivated subgroup of North Korea's state-sponsored Lazarus Group (APT38)”
reviewerKaspersky attributed the Nov 2021 bZx attack to BlueNoroff on Nov 12, 2021.Supported by secondary reporting; no primary Kaspersky publication found, and Kaspersky analysts are described as cautious on attribution. The summary states the attribution as Kaspersky's, which is accurate.
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.