← Raidpartyreviewed 2026-11-01 · 12 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Raidparty 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.
- #1[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Project Background
“Zarch (biz-dev and marketing)”
reviewerThe about page lists the biz-dev/marketing lead as 'Zarch'The official about page spells the name Zarclead. The page's 'Zarch' vs '7zarc' similarity argument depends on this spelling.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Zarclead (biz-dev and marketing)citedraid.party/about - #2[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Pseudonym 7zarc: Identity and Connections
“core team member named 'Zarch'”
reviewerThe about page lists a team member named 'Zarch'Same misspelling as in the Project Background section.Proposed correction (not yet applied)core team member named 'Zarclead'citedraid.party/about - #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Pseudonym 7zarc: Identity and Connections
“'Zarch' (listed team lead)”
reviewerSimilarity between 'Zarch' and '7zarc' pseudonymsName error; the hedge that the two are not confirmed to be the same person is appropriate. The claim that the similarity 'has been noted across community discussion' was not found in any source I fetched.Proposed correction (not yet applied)'Zarclead' (listed team lead)citedraid.party/about
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Alleged Exit Scam
“published at approximately 08:58 UTC on September 18, 2026”
reviewerOriginal X post published at approximately 08:58 UTCX is not readable without login; the secondary reports are consistent with a morning UTC post but give no exact time.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Pseudonym 7zarc: Identity and Connections
“7zarc was described as a figure from the sneaker-reselling community before entering crypto”
reviewer7zarc described as a figure from the sneaker-reselling communityThe sneaker-reselling description is supported; 'before entering crypto' is an embellishment. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2022-12-31”
reviewerTimeline: 7zarc disappeared on 2022-12-31Sources give only the year 2022; the 12-31 day is a placeholder, not a reported date. - #9[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Project Background
“underwent eight documented upgrades between approximately March 2022 and late 2022”
reviewerGame contract underwent eight upgrades between ~March 2022 and late 2022Eight upgrades confirmed, but the latest is August 2022, not late 2022; the start date could not be checked.
confirmed
5 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Exit Scam
“alleged on September 18, 2026, that Raidparty conducted an approximately $70 million exit scam”
reviewerZachXBT alleged ~$70M Raidparty exit scam; 7zarc-linked wallets received 4,870 ETH (~$15M) and moved it to CEX deposit addressesCore allegation and figures match multiple outlets. The original X post was not fetched, so the stated 08:58 UTC time is unchecked (KuCoin flash is timestamped 09:15:33). - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Dormant Fund Movement and Active Laundering Signal
“had been dormant since approximately 2022”
reviewerWallet cluster dormant since ~2022, about four years, reactivated September 2026Reports say 7zarc 'disappeared from public view' in 2022; the dormancy is of the person's public presence, which the page frames as wallet dormancy. Close enough. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Project Background
“shows 2,342 holders and a current market value of zero”
reviewerCFTI has 2,342 holders and zero market valueMatches the live Etherscan page. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token and Contract Status
“The game contract holds zero ETH, and the most recent on-chain transaction was recorded in May 2024”
reviewerGame contract holds zero ETH; last transaction May 2024; no audit on EtherscanConfirmed. The following clause, 'over a year prior to the September 2026 allegations', is consistent (about 2.3 years). - #12[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory and Legal Status
“no public court filings, SEC enforcement actions, CFTC actions, DOJ indictments, or other regulatory proceedings”
reviewerSource link for regulatory/no-action statusAbsence claim; searches found no enforcement action as of the latest coverage.
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.