Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← PolyArbreviewed 2026-10-27 · 13 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read PolyArb 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 3unverifiable 1partially supported 3confirmed 63 corrections pending · 0 applied

disputed

3 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. #2[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Domain and Technical Indicators
    “which recorded it as first identified and registered on April 8, 2026”
    reviewerpolyarb.io was first identified and registered April 8, 2026Registration date on the cited page is 2026-01-10, not 2026-04-08. April 8 appears to be a first report/flag date at most.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    which recorded it as registered on January 10, 2026
    citedphishdestroy.io/domain/polyarb.io/
  2. #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “2026-04-08”
    reviewerTimeline: polyarb.io registered 2026-04-08Event says the domain 'was registered'; the cited source gives 2026-01-10.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    2026-01-10
    citedphishdestroy.io/domain/polyarb.io/
  3. #4[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Domain and Technical Indicators
    “appears on blocklists maintained by MetaMask and SEAL”
    reviewerPhishDestroy shows domain on MetaMask and SEAL blocklistsSource is internally inconsistent; the structured data does not show a match. Safer to drop the claim.
    Proposed correction (not yet applied)
    was not matched on the MetaMask or SEAL blocklists in PhishDestroy's checks (its summary text claims otherwise)
    citedphishdestroy.io/domain/polyarb.io/

unverifiable

1 claim

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

  1. #13[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT Fraud Allegation and Wallet Drainer
    “https://www.cryptobreak.net/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin-btc/zachxbt-flags-polyarb-as-fake-prediction-market-with-an-active-wallet-drainer.html”
    reviewerCryptoBreak article supports the ZachXBT claimThe fetch returned the homepage instead of the article. This is a fetch problem, not a finding on the claim. The archive_url on file also points to the homepage.
    citedwww.cryptobreak.net/cryptocurrencies/bit…let-drainer.html

partially supported

3 claims

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

  1. #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Domain and Technical Indicators
    “hosted on IP 172.67.153.181 and registered through Name.com”
    reviewer4 of 91 vendors flagged polyarb.io on VirusTotal; IP 172.67.153.181; Name.comDetails match but the IP is a shared Cloudflare address, so it has little forensic meaning.
    citedphishdestroy.io/domain/polyarb.io/
  2. #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Domain and Technical Indicators
    “it associates the site with impersonation of the Jupiter brand (a Solana-based trading protocol) rather than Polymarket or Kalshi directly”
    reviewerSite is associated with impersonation of Jupiter rather than Polymarket/KalshiOverstates an automated classification as impersonation.
    citedphishdestroy.io/domain/polyarb.io/
  3. #11[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Broader Context: Wave of Prediction-Market Phishing
    “used a fake Cloudflare verification pop-up to execute malicious code and drain wallets; this campaign was reported to have cost users over $500,000 and was first flagged publicly by a trader using the handle "25usdc."”
    reviewerComment-section phishing campaign used fake 'private markets' and a fake Cloudflare verification pop-up, first flagged by '25usdc'The $500K figure is supported. The Cloudflare and 25usdc details were not found in the fetched BingX source; GamblingNews was not fetched, so they may come from there. The proposed correction trims the clause to the verified part.
    citedbingx.com/en/news/post/polymarket-users-…as-stolen-over-kwww.gamblingnews.com/news/phishing-link-…sing-user-90000/

confirmed

6 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
    “was publicly identified by on-chain investigator ZachXBT on May 4, 2026 as a fraudulent front containing an active wallet drainer”
    reviewerZachXBT publicly identified PolyArb on May 4, 2026 as a fake prediction-market product with a wallet drainerMultiple outlets corroborate.
    citedwww.bitget.com/news/detail/12560605395916cryptonews.net/news/security/32805424/
  2. #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Domain and Technical Indicators
    “A separate related domain, polyarb.bot, is also tracked by the same service with at least one detection as of the source's 2026 report.”
    reviewerpolyarb.bot tracked with at least one detectionUnderstated but true. 'Related' is not established by the source.
    citedphishdestroy.io/domain/polyarb.bot/
  3. #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: ZachXBT Fraud Allegation and Wallet Drainer
    “ZachXBT's warning followed an interaction between tech investor William LeGate and the PolyArb account on X”
    reviewerLeGate interaction prompted ZachXBT's warning; bbsz described a cluster run by one individual running drainers and occasional malware, a long-running credibility-building operationSupported by cryptonews.net only. The section cites Bitget as well, which is silent on these details.
    citedcryptonews.net/news/security/32805424/
  4. #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Marketing and Traffic-Generation Tactics
    “the PolyArb account allegedly engaged in reply-based marketing under posts from well-known prediction-market-related accounts”
    reviewerPolyArb account used reply-based marketing under well-known prediction-market accountsAppropriately hedged as alleged.
    citedwww.bitget.com/news/detail/12560605395916
  5. #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Broader Context: Wave of Prediction-Market Phishing
    “prediction-market open interest reportedly reached a record $1.3 billion in April 2026 across platforms including Kalshi (approximately $636.4 million) and Polymarket (approximately $589.8 million)”
    reviewerOpen interest reached record $1.3B in April 2026; Kalshi ~$636.4M, Polymarket ~$589.8MMatches source.
    citedcryptonews.net/news/security/32805424/
  6. #12[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
    “after tech investor William LeGate interacted with the PolyArb account on X”
    reviewerTimeline: ZachXBT flagged PolyArb on 2026-05-04 after LeGate interacted with the account (sources Bitget / CryptoBreak)The LeGate detail is in cryptonews.net, not in the timeline's cited Bitget source.
    citedwww.bitget.com/news/detail/12560605395916
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.