Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← Pickle Financereviewed 2026-10-16 · 26 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Pickle 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.

disputed 5unverifiable 3link rot 4partially supported 1confirmed 139 corrections pending · 0 applied

disputed

5 claims

The reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.

  1. #10[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “Cover Protocol approves Pickle Finance insurance claim; 282,035 DAI paid out, covering less than 2% of total losses.”
    reviewerCover Protocol approved the Pickle Finance insurance claim in December 2020.The page's timeline places the Cover Protocol approval in December 2020, but the primary source (Cover's own claim-outcome post) is dated November 24, 2020, the day the claim was decided and redemption opened. The event text itself is accurate and unchanged; only the stored date field is wrong.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    Cover Protocol approves Pickle Finance insurance claim; 282,035 DAI paid out, covering less than 2% of total losses.
    citedcoverprotocol.medium.com/11-21-20-claim-…nce-aa2fcc56cb7c
  2. #14[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Price Collapse and Protocol Decline
    “The token reached an all-time high of approximately $34.35 on February 9, 2021 — a brief speculative recovery likely tied to post-merger sentiment — before entering a prolonged decline.”
    reviewerPICKLE reached an all-time high of approximately $34.35 on February 9, 2021, a 'brief speculative recovery' tied to post-merger sentiment, before a prolonged decline.The page's $34.35/Feb 9, 2021 figure appears on a third-party forecast aggregator (CoinLore) but is contradicted by CoinGecko, Bybit and contemporaneous Sept 2020 reporting, which consistently place the true ATH at $85.24 on Sept 14, 2020 — days after launch, before the hack even occurred, which also undercuts the page's framing of it as 'post-merger sentiment.'
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    The token reached an all-time high of approximately $85.24 on September 14, 2020 — a brief speculative spike shortly after launch — before entering a prolonged decline.
    citedcoinmarketcap.com/currencies/pickle-finance/www.coingecko.com/en/coins/pickle-finance
  3. #15[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “PICKLE token reaches all-time high of approximately $34.35 before entering a sustained decline.”
    reviewerPICKLE reaches all-time high of approximately $34.35 before entering a sustained decline.Same underlying error as the sections[6] ATH claim; timeline event text repeats the incorrect price.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    PICKLE token reaches all-time high of approximately $85.24 before entering a sustained decline.
  4. #16[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “2021-02-09”
    reviewerPICKLE's all-time high was reached on 2021-02-09.Same defect as the price figure: the stored date field reflects a secondary/incorrect peak rather than the true all-time high date.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    2020-09-14
  5. #17[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Price Collapse and Protocol Decline
    “As of 2025, PICKLE traded more than 99.68% below its all-time high, at fractions of a cent.”
    reviewerAs of 2025, PICKLE traded more than 99.68% below its all-time high, at fractions of a cent.Downstream of the wrong all-time-high figure used elsewhere on the page; the corrected percentage is consistent with both the real ATH and the page's own 'fractions of a cent' description of the current price.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    As of 2025, PICKLE traded more than 99.9% below its all-time high, at fractions of a cent.
    citedcoinmarketcap.com/currencies/pickle-finance/www.coingecko.com/en/coins/pickle-finance

unverifiable

3 claims

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

  1. #12[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “PICKLE token surges to approximately $27 on merger announcement.”
    reviewerPICKLE token surged to approximately $27 on the merger announcement (Nov 25, 2020).Figure is in the right order of magnitude but not independently pinned down to exactly $27 by any source found; price aggregator data for that exact hour was not accessible.
  2. #18[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Price Collapse and Protocol Decline
    “TVL, which peaked at approximately $140 million in late 2020, declined to approximately $6 million by the time of the protocol's sunset announcement.”
    reviewerTVL, which peaked at approximately $140 million in late 2020, declined to approximately $6 million by the time of the protocol's sunset announcement.Directionally plausible given the broader decline narrative, but the specific $6M figure at sunset could not be independently confirmed.
    citeddefillama.com/protocol/pickle
  3. #20[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Stolen Funds Laundering via Tornado Cash
    “No arrests or identifications of the attacker have been publicly reported.”
    reviewerNo arrests or identifications of the Pickle Finance attacker have been publicly reported.A negative/absence claim; no reporting of an arrest was found, but absence of evidence cannot be treated as confirmed fact.

partially supported

1 claim

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

  1. #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Background and Launch
    “At its peak in late 2020, the protocol accumulated a total value locked (TVL) of approximately $140 million.”
    reviewerAt its peak in late 2020, Pickle Finance's TVL reached approximately $140 million.The $140M figure traces to Pickle's own retrospective post, but a contemporaneous Cointelegraph report put TVL at $347M within days of launch, a materially higher figure the page omits. The $140M may reflect a later, lower level rather than the true all-time peak.
    citedcryptotesters.com/review/what-is-pickle-financechainstack.com/pickle-finance-on-chainst…to-new-networks/docs.pickle.finance

confirmed

13 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Background and Launch
    “Pickle Finance launched in September 2020 during the height of the DeFi yield farming boom on Ethereum.”
    reviewerPickle Finance launched in September 2020 offering Pickle Jars (auto-compounding vaults) and Pickle Farms (liquidity mining for PICKLE), with PICKLE stakeable as DILL.Core product description matches independent secondary reporting on Pickle's launch and mechanics.
    citedcryptotesters.com/review/what-is-pickle-financechainstack.com/pickle-finance-on-chainst…to-new-networks/docs.pickle.finance
  2. #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Background and Launch
    “The project was founded by four pseudonymous developers primarily represented by an individual using the alias 'Larry the Cucumber,' a reference to a VeggieTales character. Two other developers, '0xPenguin' and 'BigBrainBriner,' departed in December 2020. A fourth developer known as 'Rick' left the project in its early stages.”
    reviewerPickle Finance's four pseudonymous founders included 'Larry the Cucumber' as public face, with '0xPenguin' and 'BigBrainBriner' departing in December 2020 and 'Rick' leaving earlier.Corroborated by multiple independent secondary sources beyond the page's own citations.
    citedcryptotesters.com/review/what-is-pickle-financewww.publish0x.com/arkemmus-blog/pickle-f…-flavour-xgpnznp
  3. #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: November 2020 Exploit: The Evil Jar Attack (Critical)
    “On November 21, 2020, at approximately 18:37 UTC, a sophisticated attacker exploited multiple design flaws in Pickle Finance's ControllerV4 smart contract and drained 19,759,355 DAI from the pDAI PickleJar — approximately $19.7 million at the time of the attack.”
    reviewerOn November 21, 2020 at approximately 18:37 UTC, an attacker exploited ControllerV4 and drained 19,759,355 DAI from the pDAI PickleJar via a chained attack combining an unvalidated jar check, a call-injection flaw in CurveProxyLogic's add_liquidity, and a dust-classification flaw, executed in a four-stage sequence involving StrategyCmpDAIV2 and a fake 'EvilJar' contract.The 18:37 UTC timestamp was independently corroborated by a third-party technical timeline (immunebytes.com) found via search, matching the page precisely.
    citedrekt.news/pickle-finance-rektwww.halborn.com/blog/post/explained-the-…ce-hack-nov-2020github.com/banteg/evil-jar
  4. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: November 2020 Exploit: The Evil Jar Attack (Critical)
    “Critically, the exploited ControllerV4 contract was added to the protocol on October 23, 2020 — three days after the most recent security audit by Haechi concluded on October 20, 2020 — meaning the vulnerable code was never reviewed by any auditor.”
    reviewerControllerV4 and swapExactJarForJar were deployed October 23, 2020, three days after the Haechi audit (concluded October 20, 2020) which covered only ControllerV3, meaning the exploited code was never audited; Haechi later confirmed the attack targeted code outside its review scope.Audit timeline and scope gap independently confirmed.
    citedrekt.news/pickle-finance-rektgithub.com/pickle-finance/protocol/blob/…Haechi_Audit.pdfdocs.pickle.finance/security/audits-and-…-contract-audits
  5. #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: November 2020 Exploit: The Evil Jar Attack (Critical)
    “A white-hat team drawn from Stake Capital, Yearn Finance, and other developers coordinated to patch the vulnerability and secure approximately $50 million in remaining assets still at risk.”
    reviewerThe multisig timelock required a 12-hour delay and the only keyholder able to bypass it was unavailable during the attack; a white-hat team from Stake Capital, Yearn Finance and others secured roughly $50 million in remaining at-risk assets.Confirmed by primary post-incident reporting.
    citedrekt.news/pickle-finance-rekt
  6. #7[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
    “Pickle Finance executes an emergency timelock transaction at 15:15 UTC to revoke the exploited proxy logic from the Controller.”
    reviewerPickle Finance executed an emergency timelock transaction at approximately 15:15 UTC on November 22, 2020 to revoke the exploited proxy logic.Essentially confirmed; the one-minute variance across sources is not material.
  7. #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Audit Failures and Security Governance
    “Two audits were completed prior to the exploit: one by MixBytes on October 3, 2020, and one by Haechi on October 20, 2020. However, both audits covered ControllerV3 and did not include ControllerV4 or the swapExactJarForJar function, which was deployed on October 23, 2020 — after both audits were completed.”
    reviewerBoth the MixBytes (Oct 3, 2020) and Haechi (Oct 20, 2020) audits covered only ControllerV3 and did not include ControllerV4 or swapExactJarForJar, deployed Oct 23, 2020 after both audits concluded.Confirmed.
    citedgithub.com/pickle-finance/protocol/blob/…Haechi_Audit.pdfdocs.pickle.finance/security/audits-and-…-contract-auditsrekt.news/pickle-finance-rekt
  8. #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Victim Compensation and Insurance
    “A claim was filed with Cover Protocol, a decentralized insurance platform, which ultimately approved a 100% payout ratio on covered policies. However, the total Cover Protocol payout was approximately 282,035 DAI — covering only a small fraction of the $19.7 million loss.”
    reviewerPickle Finance issued the CORNICHON token to track losses, and a claim was filed with Cover Protocol which approved a 100% payout ratio totaling approximately 282,035 DAI, covering a small fraction of the $19.7 million loss.Confirmed against the primary Cover Protocol announcement itself.
    citedcoverprotocol.medium.com/11-21-20-claim-…nce-aa2fcc56cb7c
  9. #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Yearn Finance Merger and Governance Controversy
    “On November 24, 2020 — three days after the exploit — Yearn Finance announced what was characterized as DeFi's first merger, absorbing Pickle Finance.”
    reviewerOn November 24, 2020, Yearn Finance announced a merger absorbing Pickle Finance without a prior governance vote from either community, with a retroactive vote posted afterward.Confirmed by multiple independent outlets beyond the page's own cited sources.
    citedbeincrypto.com/yearn-finance-consumes-pi…governance-vote/www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/24/year…-protocols-mergecointelegraph.com/news/yearn-finance-abs…ost-defi-rewardsgov.yearn.finance/t/retroactive-vote-on-…rn-ferments/8306
  10. #13[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Price Collapse and Protocol Decline
    “The PICKLE token fell approximately 50% on the day of the exploit, declining from roughly $23 to $10.17.”
    reviewerPICKLE fell approximately 50% on the day of the exploit, from roughly $23 to $10.17.Confirmed, with the $10.17 figure matching a cited source exactly.
    citedcoinmarketcap.com/currencies/pickle-finance/www.coingecko.com/en/coins/pickle-finance
  11. #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Stolen Funds Laundering via Tornado Cash
    “Specifically, 1,800 ETH — representing a portion of the converted stolen funds — was moved through Tornado Cash in batches of 100 ETH.”
    reviewerProceeds from the exploit (1,800 ETH) were laundered through Tornado Cash in batches of 100 ETH, per PeckShieldAlert; Tornado Cash was later OFAC-sanctioned in August 2022 for laundering funds for the Lazarus Group and others.Confirmed by an independent mirror of the cited reporting; OFAC sanction timing is well-documented.
    citedcryptonews.net/news/security/6222707/en.ethereumworldnews.com/2020s-pickle-fi…gh-tornado-cash/
  12. #25[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Shutdown (2025)
    “The remaining treasury of 170,280 USDC was distributed proportionally to eligible PICKLE and DILL token holders across multiple blockchains, with eligibility requiring an aggregate balance exceeding 300 PICKLE tokens as of a June 10, 2025 snapshot.”
    reviewerIn 2025 Pickle Finance announced it was sunsetting after nearly five years; the UI was disabled October 1, 2025, with smart contracts remaining functional; the remaining 170,280 USDC treasury was distributed to PICKLE/DILL holders across multiple chains with a minimum 300 PICKLE aggregate balance as of a June 10, 2025 snapshot.Confirmed directly against the primary announcement.
    citedpicklefinance.medium.com/pickle-finance-…jar-7996fe4ecd94
  13. #26[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Pseudonymous Team and Accountability Risk
    “The fully anonymous team structure means that no formal legal accountability for the $19.7 million loss was possible.”
    reviewerPickle Finance was built and operated entirely by pseudonymous developers with no formal legal accountability possible for the $19.7 million loss.Consistent with corroborated pseudonymous-team facts established elsewhere in this review; the legal-accountability framing is a reasonable characterization rather than a specific verifiable fact, but not contradicted by any source found.
    citedcryptotesters.com/review/what-is-pickle-financewww.publish0x.com/arkemmus-blog/pickle-f…-flavour-xgpnznp
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.