← Quark Drainerreviewed 2026-11-03 · 26 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Quark Drainer 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
3 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #6[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview and Operating Model
“This no-commission structure is presented as a competitive differentiator against platforms such as Inferno Drainer (15–20% cut) and Angel Drainer (20% cut).”
reviewerInferno Drainer charges a 15–20% cut and Angel Drainer charges a 20% cutThe source cited for this section (Ledger Academy) never names Inferno or Angel Drainer or gives percentages for them. Independent reporting (CertiK, BlockSec on-chain analysis, multiple news outlets) consistently describes both platforms' cuts as 20-30%, not 15-20%/20%.Proposed correction (not yet applied)This no-commission structure is presented as a competitive differentiator against platforms such as Inferno Drainer (20–30% cut) and Angel Drainer (20–30% cut). - #17[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Broader DaaS Ecosystem Context
“Angel Drainer (shut down March 2024)”
reviewerAngel Drainer shut down in March 2024Independent reporting consistently places Angel Drainer's shutdown in July 2024, not March 2024.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Angel Drainer (shut down July 2024) - #22[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“priced at $3,000/month for the infostealer component.”
reviewerThe $3,000/month Intel 471-documented MaaS price was specifically for the infostealer component (not the combined offering)This timeline event mischaracterizes Intel 471's reporting by attributing the $3,000/month price to the infostealer component specifically; the source prices the whole bundle at that rate. Compare with sections[3].content, which states it correctly.Proposed correction (not yet applied)priced at $3,000/month for the combined drainer-and-infostealer offering.
unverifiable
6 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“and is sold for a flat fee of $5,000 with no ongoing revenue-share commission to operators”
reviewerQuark Drainer is sold for a flat fee of $5,000 with no ongoing revenue-share commissionPrimary pricing source is a carding-forum ad that could not be read directly (bot wall) or via archive (tool/safety restriction). No independent corroboration of the specific $5,000 flat-fee / no-commission structure was found. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview and Operating Model
“a one-time license of $5,000 grants the buyer backend source code, a frontend interface, smart contract components, and access to a private community of alleged 200+ users”
reviewerA one-time $5,000 license grants backend source code, frontend, smart contract components and access to a 200+ user private communityBoth cited forum ads were unreachable in this review environment (Cloudflare bot wall and a safety-triggered block). Note: the word 'alleged' already hedges the 200+ user figure appropriately. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Technical Capabilities and Supported Chains
“The toolkit allegedly bypasses transaction simulation tools including WalletGuard, Pocket Universe, and Blockaid's own detection layer.”
reviewerQuark Drainer bypasses WalletGuard, Pocket Universe and Blockaid's own detection layerThe word 'allegedly' hedges appropriately, but the specific tool-bypass claim rests on an inaccessible forum post and is not in the accessible Blockaid content. - #20[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Victim Risk Profile
“The toolkit's priority drainage order — targeting ETH, USDT, USDC, BNB, DAI, SOL, XRP, SHIBA, TRX first — indicates a focus on liquid, high-value assets.”
reviewerQuark Drainer's priority drainage order targets ETH, USDT, USDC, BNB, DAI, SOL, XRP, SHIBA, TRX firstThis specific asset-priority detail could not be checked against any accessible source. - #21[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Earliest confirmed forum advertisement for Quark Drainer appears on ewebdiscussion.com, listing $5,000 pricing, EVM chain support, and Seaport/Permit2 capabilities. A $4,000 holiday discount was promoted for November 15, 2023.”
reviewerEarliest confirmed forum ad for Quark Drainer appeared Nov 2, 2023 on ewebdiscussion.com with $5,000 pricing and a $4,000 holiday discount promoted for Nov 15, 2023Could not independently confirm the specific date, pricing, or discount details of this earliest ad. - #26[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Updated Quark Drainer advertisement posted on crdweb.cc advertising support for 440+ wallets, 90+ networks, EVM, Solana, TON, TRON, XRP; 400+ landing pages; and a private community of 200+ users. Price remains $5,000.”
reviewerThe July 9, 2026 crdweb.cc ad advertised 440+ wallets and 90+ networksCould not confirm the specific figures against the source directly, but they create an unreconciled internal conflict with sections[1].content's '480 compatible wallets' figure, which the page attributes partly to this same ad. See defect_group quark-wallet-count-mismatch.
partially supported
7 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“Security researchers at Blockaid identified Quark Lab as the most prolific drainer operation observed in their 2025–2026 tracking dataset.”
reviewerBlockaid identified Quark Lab as the most prolific drainer operation observed in a '2025–2026 tracking dataset'The core quote is accurate; the specific '2025–2026 tracking dataset' framing is not stated in the source and should not be presented as a Blockaid-stated fact. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview and Operating Model
“Unlike competing DaaS platforms that levy a 15–25% commission on stolen funds”
reviewerCompeting DaaS platforms levy a 15–25% commission on stolen fundsThe cited Ledger Academy page gives no numeric range at all; the closest independently-found figure (SecurityBrief Asia) is 5-25%, not 15-25%, and other reporting on specific drainers (see next finding) cites ranges up to 30%. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Technical Capabilities and Supported Chains
“Quark Drainer supports more than 90 blockchain networks and approximately 480 compatible wallets as of mid-2026.”
reviewerQuark Drainer supports more than 90 blockchain networks and approximately 480 wallets as of mid-2026This sentence appears to splice the higher blockchain count from the July 2026 forum ad with the higher wallet count from Blockaid's June 2026 post, producing a combined figure (90 networks AND 480 wallets) that matches neither source exactly. The page's own timeline[5] entry, sourced from the same forum ad, instead gives 440+ wallets / 90+ networks -- an internal inconsistency. - #13[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Quark Stealer — Companion Infostealer Component
“KELA Cyber's 2025 report on the rise of macOS infostealers identified Quark Stealer as one of two featured case studies, noting that underground market activity for macOS-targeting infostealers peaked in 2025.”
reviewerKELA Cyber's report identified Quark Stealer as one of two featured case studies and found underground market activity for macOS infostealers peaked in 2025The case-study claim is accurate; the 'peaked in 2025' framing overstates what the source says, which describes 2025 as prominent, not as a peak that implies subsequent decline. - #14[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Broader DaaS Ecosystem Context
“wallet drainer phishing losses across the broader ecosystem reached approximately $494 million in 2024 (Scam Sniffer) before falling to approximately $84 million in 2025 — an 83% decline attributed to improved detection and the takedown of predecessor platforms.”
reviewerWallet drainer phishing losses reached ~$494M in 2024 and fell to ~$84M in 2025 (83% decline), attributed to improved detection and takedown of predecessor platformsThe dollar figures and percentage are accurate. The causal claim that the decline is attributable to 'takedown of predecessor platforms' is not supported by the cited reporting, which instead points to detection improvements and a shift to smaller attacks; several named 'predecessor' drainers did not in fact stay shut down. - #15[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Broader DaaS Ecosystem Context
“However, Blockaid's H1 2026 report recorded $1.1 billion in total on-chain exploit losses across 212 incidents, indicating that theft activity has rebounded significantly.”
reviewerBlockaid's H1 2026 report recorded $1.1 billion in total on-chain exploit losses across 212 incidents, indicating that theft activity has rebounded significantlyThe figure is correctly quoted, but juxtaposing it against the drainer-phishing-specific 2025 decline implies the same category of loss rebounded, when the $1.1B figure covers a broader and different set of incident types (DeFi exploits, bridge hacks, etc.), not specifically wallet-drainer phishing. - #23[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“KELA Cyber reports underground market chatter for macOS infostealers, including Quark Stealer, peaked in 2025.”
reviewerKELA Cyber reports underground market chatter for macOS infostealers, including Quark Stealer, peaked in 2025Same overstatement as the parallel claim in sections[3]; duplicated across two locations on the page.
confirmed
10 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“it supports wallet draining across more than 70 blockchains and 480 wallets”
reviewerQuark Drainer supports wallet draining across more than 70 blockchains and 480 walletsDirectly matches Blockaid's published figures for Quark Lab. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“No law enforcement action or OFAC designation against the operators has been publicly confirmed as of August 2026.”
reviewerNo law enforcement action or OFAC designation against the Quark operators has been publicly confirmed as of August 2026Consistent with independent search; no reporting of any enforcement action against Quark Lab was found. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Quark Lab as Most Prolific Drainer Operation (Blockaid Finding)
“Security firm Blockaid, in its blog post analyzing how wallet drainers exploit new blockchain launches, described Quark Lab as 'the most prolific drainer operation observed in this dataset.'”
reviewerBlockaid described Quark Lab as 'the most prolific drainer operation observed in this dataset'Exact quote match. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Quark Lab as Most Prolific Drainer Operation (Blockaid Finding)
“The broader DaaS ecosystem accounted for an estimated $1.93 billion in losses in the first half of 2025 according to PhishDestroy research.”
reviewerThe broader DaaS ecosystem accounted for an estimated $1.93 billion in losses in the first half of 2025 according to PhishDestroy researchMatches cited source, though PhishDestroy does not disclose its own methodology/sourcing for the figure. - #12[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Quark Stealer — Companion Infostealer Component
“This offering was priced at $3,000 per month at the time of Intel 471's reporting.”
reviewerIntel 471's reported $3,000/month MaaS offering was priced at that rate for the combined drainer-and-infostealer packageCorrectly attributes the $3,000/month price to the combined MaaS bundle, matching Intel 471. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Broader DaaS Ecosystem Context
“Inferno Drainer (shut down November 2023, re-emerged 2024)”
reviewerInferno Drainer shut down in November 2023 and re-emerged in 2024Both dates independently confirmed. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Broader DaaS Ecosystem Context
“Pink Drainer (retired May 2024)”
reviewerPink Drainer retired in May 2024Confirmed by The Block. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Operator Identity and Attribution
“Intel 471 tracked the actor as 'QuarkLab' in its underground market monitoring beginning in April 2024 but did not publish a real-world identity attribution.”
reviewerIntel 471 tracked the actor as 'QuarkLab' beginning in April 2024 but did not publish a real-world identity attributionMatches source. - #24[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“Security Alliance publishes State of Drainers Vol. 1, documenting the broader drainer ecosystem including operators such as Inferno, Rublevka, Eleven, and Vanilla. Quark Lab is tracked as active during this period by Blockaid.”
reviewerSecurity Alliance's State of Drainers Vol. 1 (Oct 2025) documents operators including Inferno, Rublevka, Eleven and VanillaAccurate as written; correctly avoids implying Security Alliance's report names Quark Lab. - #25[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“Blockaid publishes findings identifying Quark Lab as the most prolific drainer operation in its tracking dataset, noting support for 70+ blockchains and 480 wallets. Airdrop phishing templates targeting new chain launches are specifically called out.”
reviewerBlockaid published findings in 2026 identifying Quark Lab as the most prolific drainer operation, noting 70+ blockchains and 480 walletsConfirmed; year-level date precision is accurate even though exact month (June) is more specific.
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.