Audit log

Every state-changing event for PiggyBank Protocol: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot taken at submission time, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key.

1. #1publishby system:backfill

   2026-06-09 21:11:35Z
   Score: ? → ? (no score change)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 425,406,740

   sig

   V318kpYcZj6G…T4vCZj81copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   DSQTqEHyzZWr…BthauYzvcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (21191 B) ▸

   {"actor":"system:backfill","investigation_id":"4832d100-6f44-4d70-a8be-ebdc596fc278","kind":"publish","page_slug":"piggybank-protocol","published_at":"2026-06-09T21:11:35.080Z","sequence_num":1,"snapshot":{"content_type":"investigation","entity_name":"PiggyBank Protocol","sections":[{"content":"PiggyBank Protocol (piggybank.fi) is a yield-generation platform deployed on the Solana blockchain. The protocol operates three live vaults: a USDC stablecoin vault ($3.06M TVL), a SPYx tokenized-stock vault ($823K TVL), and a JitoSOL liquid-staking vault ($639K TVL), with additional vaults for TSLAx and NVDAx listed as coming soon. Total Value Locked across all vaults was reported at approximately $4.52M at time of investigation, with over 2,500 users and a cumulative net performance figure of $188K stated on the protocol's homepage. Vault deposits return pb-tokens representing proportional ownership; withdrawals are processed on a 48-to-96-hour epoch cycle. The core yield strategy for the USDC vault is described as a delta-neutral approach based on funding-rate arbitrage across approximately ten perpetual decentralized exchanges, with up to 5x leverage. For xStock vaults, deposited assets are used as collateral on Kamino and Loopscale lending protocols to borrow stablecoins that are then deployed into the same funding-rate strategies. The protocol's smart contracts were audited by Formal Land, the formal-verification team associated with Tezos and Nomadic Labs; an audit report PDF is linked from the protocol's website. The team describes itself as having backgrounds in blockchain engineering, financial engineering, and quantitative research, but no individual team members are publicly named on the protocol's website or documentation.","heading":"Protocol Overview","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Protocol official website (piggybank.fi)","type":"official","url":"https://www.piggybank.fi/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Gitbook documentation","type":"official","url":"https://piggybank.gitbook.io/docs"}]},{"content":"On June 6, 2026, PiggyBank publicly disclosed that a mid-cap basis-trading position involving the LAB token had failed, resulting in significant NAV declines across all three active vaults. The protocol stated it had entered the position approximately one month prior by purchasing locked LAB tokens at a discount through an OTC desk, representing an initial outlay of roughly $100,000 and approximately 2% of total portfolio value at the time of entry. The strategy paired this long locked-token position with short perpetual futures to create a delta-neutral hedge designed to capture the discount between the locked spot price and the liquid market price. The hedge was unwound after the protocol described market conditions as involving 'violent manipulation,' thin liquidity, and deeply negative funding rates that made maintaining the short position economically unsustainable. At the time of disclosure, the locked LAB position was valued at approximately $1.35 million at then-current market prices, representing a large notional increase from the $100,000 cost basis; however, because the tokens remain locked until a scheduled August 14, 2026 unlock and cannot be liquidated, the protocol stated it would exclude the position from NAV calculations until that date. This accounting treatment was the direct mechanism by which the disclosed NAV declines materialized for depositors: the USDC vault recorded an estimated 15% drawdown, the SPYx vault an estimated 12% decline, and the JitoSOL vault an estimated 9% decline. PiggyBank characterized this exclusion as 'the fairest and most transparent way to let users manage their liquidity' and committed to publishing a detailed post-mortem report including trade records, risk thresholds, loss calculations, and unlock management plans; as of the investigation date that report had not been publicly released. The specific dollar value of depositor losses attributable to the incident was not independently verified in public disclosures.","heading":"LAB Basis-Trade Loss and Vault NAV Drawdowns","severity":"high","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank's LAB hedge backfires as USDC vault NAV drops 15% — crypto.news","type":"news_article","url":"https://crypto.news/piggybanks-lab-hedge-backfires-as-usdc-vault-nav-drops-15/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Unwinds LAB Hedge After USDC Vault NAV Falls Nearly 15% — MoneyCheck","type":"news_article","url":"https://moneycheck.com/piggybank-unwinds-lab-hedge-after-usdc-vault-nav-falls-nearly-15-today/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Trading Error Hits DeFi Vaults, NAVs Seen Dropping Up to 15% — TokenPost","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.tokenpost.com/news/technology/21143"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Reports 15% Drawdown in USDC Vault After LAB Basis Trading Error — CoinCu","type":"news_article","url":"https://coincu.com/piggybank-15-drawdown-usdc-vault-lab-basis-trading-error/"}]},{"content":"On-chain investigator ZachXBT publicly criticized PiggyBank following the June 2026 disclosure, stating the protocol had 'lost user assets gambling on blatant scam coins.' ZachXBT's criticism referenced his own prior investigation into LAB, published on approximately May 14–15, 2026, which alleged that insiders controlled more than 95% of the LAB token's total supply of one billion tokens. That investigation alleged the LAB team — identified as co-founders Vova Sadkov (also known as @vsadkovv) and a co-founder identified as 'Mark' (@tokensaler), both Dubai-based — ran OTC loan schemes at 7.5% monthly interest rates with 60–80% discounts to market price, unilaterally extended vesting cliffs for retail participants from three months to nine months without buyer consent, and coordinated with a market maker and Bitget insiders to engineer a 350%+ price pump to a $6 billion fully diluted valuation in early May 2026 before a 65%+ crash within hours. ZachXBT further alleged that 226 million LAB tokens were deposited into Bitget accounts by insider-linked wallets between March and April 2026. ZachXBT's characterizations of LAB as a 'scam' and PiggyBank's trade as 'gambling' represent his opinion and allegations; they are not legal findings. However, the underlying data points — insider supply concentration, the price manipulation timeline, and discrepancies in circulating supply figures across CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and RootData — are independently reported. ZachXBT also posted a $10,000 bounty for documents relating to LAB co-founder Vova Sadkov and called for Binance, Bitget, and Gate.io to freeze insider profits or delist LAB immediately. The question raised by ZachXBT and subsequent coverage is why PiggyBank, operating vaults intended to deliver stable, market-neutral yield to retail depositors, entered an OTC position in a token subject to these allegations — and whether depositors were adequately informed of this risk prior to the position being taken.","heading":"ZachXBT Allegations: Risk Management and LAB Token Quality","severity":"critical","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Questions PiggyBank's Risk Management Over $LAB Bet — CryptoTimes","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/06/06/zachxbt-questions-piggybanks-risk-management-over-lab-bet/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Slams PiggyBank After LAB Trade Hits User Vaults — CryptoAdventure","type":"news_article","url":"https://cryptoadventure.com/zachxbt-slams-piggybank-after-lab-trade-hits-user-vaults/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Says 95% of LAB Token Is Insider-Controlled — Bitcoin News","type":"news_article","url":"https://news.bitcoin.com/zachxbt-lab-token-insider-control-bitget-investigation-2026/"},{"credibility":1,"name":"ZachXBT alleges 95% insider control of LAB token — The Block","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.theblock.co/post/401290/zachxbt-alleges-95-insider-control-of-lab-token-in-investigation-into-ai-terminals-6-billion-fdv-project"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Alleges 95% LAB Token Are Controlled by Insiders — CryptoTimes (May 2026)","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/05/14/zachxbt-alleges-95-lab-token-are-controlled-by-insiders/"}]},{"content":"Several transparency and fiduciary concerns have been raised by commentators and media in connection with the LAB incident. First, PiggyBank's decision to exclude the locked LAB position from its published NAV calculations until the August 14, 2026 unlock date means that depositors who entered the vaults before the June 6 disclosure were exposed to a speculative, illiquid long position in a mid-cap token without that exposure being reflected in the NAV they observed. Whether this exclusion violated any stated risk policy or user agreement has not been adjudicated. Second, PiggyBank's own documentation characterizes its USDC vault as deploying delta-neutral, market-neutral strategies; critics argue that taking a directional OTC position in a single locked altcoin with contested supply mechanics is outside the scope of a market-neutral mandate, regardless of the perpetual hedge intended to offset it. Third, the post-mortem report promised by the protocol in its initial disclosure had not been published as of the investigation date, leaving depositors without a full accounting of the trade rationale, sizing, hedge execution, and loss calculation methodology. PiggyBank's stated position that excluding the locked position from NAV was 'the fairest and most transparent' approach has been contested by critics who argue that the opposite is true: prior disclosure of the position and its illiquidity would have been more transparent. No regulatory action had been initiated against PiggyBank in connection with these concerns as of the investigation date.","heading":"Disclosure, Transparency, and NAV Accounting Concerns","severity":"high","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank's LAB hedge backfires as USDC vault NAV drops 15% — crypto.news","type":"news_article","url":"https://crypto.news/piggybanks-lab-hedge-backfires-as-usdc-vault-nav-drops-15/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Trading Error Hits DeFi Vaults, NAVs Seen Dropping Up to 15% — TokenPost","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.tokenpost.com/news/technology/21143"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Questions PiggyBank's Risk Management Over $LAB Bet — CryptoTimes","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/06/06/zachxbt-questions-piggybanks-risk-management-over-lab-bet/"}]},{"content":"In April 2026, PiggyBank was among more than twenty protocols affected by the Drift Protocol hack, in which attackers drained approximately $285 million from Drift on April 1, 2026 using fake collateral and pre-signed administrative transactions. PiggyBank reported that it had approximately $106,000 in exposure through its delta-neutral strategies deployed on or through Drift. Notably, PiggyBank reimbursed its affected users in full from the protocol's own team treasury rather than passing losses to depositors. This action was publicly noted as a positive demonstration of the team's commitment to user protection. The Drift hack was separately attributed by security firms Elliptic and TRM Labs to DPRK-linked threat actors. The Drift incident is relevant context because it demonstrates both PiggyBank's deployment of user capital in externally dependent third-party protocols (a risk factor) and the team's prior willingness to absorb losses on behalf of depositors.","heading":"Prior Incident: Drift Protocol Hack Exposure (April 2026)","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Drift Protocol Hack 2026: What Happened, Who Lost Money, and What's Next — Bitcoin News","type":"news_article","url":"https://news.bitcoin.com/drift-protocol-hack-2026-what-happened-who-lost-money-and-whats-next/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Drift Protocol Hit by $285M Exploit — CCN","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/drift-protocol-285m-biggest-hack-2026-april-fools-day/"}]},{"content":"PiggyBank Protocol does not publicly identify any individual team members on its website, documentation, or social media profiles as of the investigation date. The protocol lists a contact email (hi@piggybank.fi) and maintains a presence on X/Twitter (@piggybank_fi) and Discord. The Gitbook documentation describes the team as having backgrounds in 'blockchain, financial engineering, and quantitative research' without naming individuals. This level of anonymity is not uncommon among Solana DeFi protocols but is a risk factor for depositors: in the event of fund loss, legal recourse or attribution is significantly more difficult when the operating team is not publicly identified. No legal entity associated with PiggyBank Protocol has been identified in available public sources.","heading":"Team Anonymity and Governance","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Protocol official website","type":"official","url":"https://www.piggybank.fi/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Gitbook documentation","type":"official","url":"https://piggybank.gitbook.io/docs"}]},{"content":"PiggyBank Protocol states its smart contracts were audited by Formal Land, described on the protocol's website as the formal-verification team behind the Tezos blockchain work with Nomadic Labs. A PDF audit report is linked from the protocol's official website. The independent verification of the scope, date, and findings of this audit — including whether any critical or high-severity issues were identified and remediated — could not be confirmed from available public sources at the time of this investigation, as the audit document is a binary PDF that was not processable in text form. Users are advised to review the audit report directly before depositing.","heading":"Smart Contract Audit","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Formal Land audit report (PDF)","type":"other","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/68e7628180c5b014e78a46cc/6900fa6f3a2659fab4c7b728_piggy_bank.pdf"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Protocol official website — audit reference","type":"official","url":"https://www.piggybank.fi/"}]}],"sources_used":[{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank's LAB hedge backfires as USDC vault NAV drops 15% — crypto.news","type":"news_article","url":"https://crypto.news/piggybanks-lab-hedge-backfires-as-usdc-vault-nav-drops-15/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Questions PiggyBank's Risk Management Over $LAB Bet — CryptoTimes","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/06/06/zachxbt-questions-piggybanks-risk-management-over-lab-bet/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Slams PiggyBank After LAB Trade Hits User Vaults — CryptoAdventure","type":"news_article","url":"https://cryptoadventure.com/zachxbt-slams-piggybank-after-lab-trade-hits-user-vaults/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Trading Error Hits DeFi Vaults, NAVs Seen Dropping Up to 15% — TokenPost","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.tokenpost.com/news/technology/21143"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Unwinds LAB Hedge After USDC Vault NAV Falls Nearly 15% — MoneyCheck","type":"news_article","url":"https://moneycheck.com/piggybank-unwinds-lab-hedge-after-usdc-vault-nav-falls-nearly-15-today/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Reports 15% Drawdown in USDC Vault After LAB Basis Trading Error — CoinCu","type":"news_article","url":"https://coincu.com/piggybank-15-drawdown-usdc-vault-lab-basis-trading-error/"},{"credibility":1,"name":"ZachXBT alleges 95% insider control of LAB token — The Block","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.theblock.co/post/401290/zachxbt-alleges-95-insider-control-of-lab-token-in-investigation-into-ai-terminals-6-billion-fdv-project"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Says 95% of LAB Token Is Insider-Controlled — Bitcoin News","type":"news_article","url":"https://news.bitcoin.com/zachxbt-lab-token-insider-control-bitget-investigation-2026/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ZachXBT Alleges 95% LAB Token Are Controlled by Insiders — CryptoTimes (May 2026)","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/05/14/zachxbt-alleges-95-lab-token-are-controlled-by-insiders/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Drift Protocol Hack 2026 — Bitcoin News","type":"news_article","url":"https://news.bitcoin.com/drift-protocol-hack-2026-what-happened-who-lost-money-and-whats-next/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Protocol official website","type":"official","url":"https://www.piggybank.fi/"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Gitbook documentation","type":"official","url":"https://piggybank.gitbook.io/docs"},{"credibility":2,"name":"PiggyBank Formal Land audit report (PDF)","type":"other","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/68e7628180c5b014e78a46cc/6900fa6f3a2659fab4c7b728_piggy_bank.pdf"}],"summary":"PiggyBank Protocol is a Solana-based DeFi yield platform offering delta-neutral funding-rate arbitrage vaults across USDC, JitoSOL, and tokenized stock (xStocks) assets. On or around June 6, 2026 the protocol disclosed that a mid-cap basis trade involving locked LAB tokens had failed, producing NAV declines of approximately 15%, 12%, and 9% across its three active vaults. On-chain investigator ZachXBT publicly alleged that the protocol had exposed depositor funds to a token he characterized as a scam with over 95% insider-controlled supply, raising serious risk-management and disclosure concerns that remain unresolved as of the investigation date.","timeline":[{"date":"2025-10-01","event":"LAB token launches its token generation event, positioning as an AI-powered trading terminal.","source":"Bitcoin News / ZachXBT investigation coverage","source_url":"https://news.bitcoin.com/zachxbt-lab-token-insider-control-bitget-investigation-2026/"},{"date":"2026-03-01","event":"Wallets linked to LAB insiders begin accumulating approximately 226 million LAB tokens in Bitget accounts, according to ZachXBT's subsequent investigation.","source":"CryptoTimes — ZachXBT May 2026 investigation","source_url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/05/14/zachxbt-alleges-95-lab-token-are-controlled-by-insiders/"},{"date":"2026-04-01","event":"Drift Protocol is hacked for approximately $285 million. PiggyBank reports $106,000 in exposure and reimburses affected users from team treasury.","source":"Bitcoin News — Drift Protocol hack coverage","source_url":"https://news.bitcoin.com/drift-protocol-hack-2026-what-happened-who-lost-money-and-whats-next/"},{"date":"2026-05-01","event":"PiggyBank enters a $100,000 OTC position in locked LAB tokens at a discount, hedged with perpetual futures shorts, as part of its stated mid-cap basis trading strategy.","source":"crypto.news / TokenPost — LAB incident coverage","source_url":"https://crypto.news/piggybanks-lab-hedge-backfires-as-usdc-vault-nav-drops-15/"},{"date":"2026-05-11","event":"Approximately 100 million LAB tokens are moved to ten newly created wallets. LAB surges over 350% within 72 hours to a $6 billion FDV before crashing 65%+.","source":"CryptoTimes — ZachXBT investigation","source_url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/05/14/zachxbt-alleges-95-lab-token-are-controlled-by-insiders/"},{"date":"2026-05-14","event":"ZachXBT publishes investigation into LAB, alleging over 95% insider supply control, OTC manipulation, unilateral vesting extensions, and Bitget coordination. ZachXBT posts a $10,000 bounty for documents related to LAB co-founder Vova Sadkov.","source":"CryptoTimes / The Block","source_url":"https://www.theblock.co/post/401290/zachxbt-alleges-95-insider-control-of-lab-token-in-investigation-into-ai-terminals-6-billion-fdv-project"},{"date":"2026-06-06","event":"PiggyBank discloses the failure of its LAB basis trade, citing 'violent manipulation,' thin liquidity, and deeply negative funding rates. The protocol announces it has closed the perpetual short hedge and will exclude the locked LAB position (valued at ~$1.35M at current prices) from NAV until August 14 unlock. Estimated vault NAV impacts: USDC -15%, SPYx -12%, JitoSOL -9%.","source":"crypto.news / CryptoTimes / TokenPost","source_url":"https://crypto.news/piggybanks-lab-hedge-backfires-as-usdc-vault-nav-drops-15/"},{"date":"2026-06-06","event":"ZachXBT publicly criticizes PiggyBank, stating the protocol 'lost user assets gambling on blatant scam coins,' referencing his prior LAB investigation.","source":"CryptoTimes","source_url":"https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/06/06/zachxbt-questions-piggybanks-risk-management-over-lab-bet/"},{"date":"2026-06-07","event":"TokenPost and CoinCu publish coverage of the incident. PiggyBank's detailed post-mortem report, promised for 'the following week,' has not yet been published.","source":"TokenPost","source_url":"https://www.tokenpost.com/news/technology/21143"},{"date":"2026-08-14","event":"Scheduled first unlock of PiggyBank's locked LAB position. Protocol has stated this is the date the position will be reintroduced to NAV calculations.","source":"crypto.news / TokenPost","source_url":"https://crypto.news/piggybanks-lab-hedge-backfires-as-usdc-vault-nav-drops-15/"}]},"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision f1687d06-7dda-466a-b17f-5a0fdf3cf410copy
2. #2reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-06-10 15:19:10Z
   Score: 32 → 32 (no score change)
   The investigation page is well-sourced and factually accurate across its core claims. The LAB incident details, ZachXBT's specific allegations, vault drawdown figures, Drift hack facts, and team anonymity claims are all independently confirmed by credible news sources. The three partially_supported findings relate to minor overstatements: the Formal Land auditor description ('associated with Tezos and Nomadic Labs' overstates what is an independent contractor relationship), the withdrawal epoch description (ambiguous about total wait time versus epoch length), and the $188K net performance figure and detailed USDC vault strategy parameters (not independently verifiable from the sources available). One claim (the ten-DEX, 5x-leverage USDC strategy specifics) is unverifiable from available sources. A minor timeline inaccuracy exists: the LAB TGE date is listed as October 1 but was October 14, 2025. No claims were found to be disputed or contradicted by more credible sources.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 425,571,475

   sig

   5hgNx8vGfZ3m…ZcXzr4Djcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   DwHZNSrU7RG9…xtGcnnSxcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1341 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-10T15:19:10.638Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"4832d100-6f44-4d70-a8be-ebdc596fc278","new_score":32,"page_slug":"piggybank-protocol","prev_score":32,"reason":"The investigation page is well-sourced and factually accurate across its core claims. The LAB incident details, ZachXBT's specific allegations, vault drawdown figures, Drift hack facts, and team anonymity claims are all independently confirmed by credible news sources. The three partially_supported findings relate to minor overstatements: the Formal Land auditor description ('associated with Tezos and Nomadic Labs' overstates what is an independent contractor relationship), the withdrawal epoch description (ambiguous about total wait time versus epoch length), and the $188K net performance figure and detailed USDC vault strategy parameters (not independently verifiable from the sources available). One claim (the ten-DEX, 5x-leverage USDC strategy specifics) is unverifiable from available sources. A minor timeline inaccuracy exists: the LAB TGE date is listed as October 1 but was October 14, 2025. No claims were found to be disputed or contradicted by more credible sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 5366ff0c-e294-4f09-b4ae-ca3f56347508copy
3. #3review approveby judgejudge

   2026-06-10 15:19:10Z
   Score: 32 → 32 (no score change)
   The reviewer checked 24 claims and found zero disputed. Twenty claims were fully confirmed by independent sources, three are partially supported due to minor wording imprecision (claim_findings[2] on epoch timing, claim_findings[4] on Formal Land's relationship to Nomadic Labs, claim_findings[3] on USDC vault specifics), and one is unverifiable from available public sources. The disputed_pct of 4.2% falls well within the 0-10% approval band. Three high-priority coverage gaps remain open — on-chain verification of the LAB position, audit PDF scope, and LAB supply concentration — but these call for page expansion rather than correction, and do not undermine the accuracy of what is currently published.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 425,571,478

   sig

   3tb8GmCa9zka…5GPM6YhLcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   8Xye872AuGWB…oTm4UwwAcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1067 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-10T15:19:10.638Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"4832d100-6f44-4d70-a8be-ebdc596fc278","new_score":32,"page_slug":"piggybank-protocol","prev_score":32,"reason":"The reviewer checked 24 claims and found zero disputed. Twenty claims were fully confirmed by independent sources, three are partially supported due to minor wording imprecision (claim_findings[2] on epoch timing, claim_findings[4] on Formal Land's relationship to Nomadic Labs, claim_findings[3] on USDC vault specifics), and one is unverifiable from available public sources. The disputed_pct of 4.2% falls well within the 0-10% approval band. Three high-priority coverage gaps remain open — on-chain verification of the LAB position, audit PDF scope, and LAB supply concentration — but these call for page expansion rather than correction, and do not undermine the accuracy of what is currently published.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 89c7a842-c031-4b71-8deb-3f5450e27bbecopy