← Resolvreviewed 2026-11-02 · 10 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Resolv 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
2 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Security & Audits
“External firms engaged for post-incident forensics include Hypernative, Hexens, MixBytes, SEAL 911, Mandiant, and ZeroShadow.”
reviewerMandiant and ZeroShadow are engaged forensic firmsThe postmortem says Mandiant and ZeroShadow are planned, not already engaged. I found no later source confirming engagement.Proposed correction (not yet applied)External firms engaged for post-incident forensics include Hypernative, Hexens, MixBytes, and SEAL 911, with Mandiant and ZeroShadow planned for further review. - #4[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2026-03-26”
reviewerForensic investigation begins 2026-03-26 with Mandiant and ZeroShadow; postmortem published 2026-03-26The postmortem is dated April 4, 2026. An earlier statement from Resolv may have existed around March 26, but I did not verify one. The event text should also drop Mandiant and ZeroShadow as already engaged.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2026-04-04
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment
“Protocol operations remain paused as of May 2026.”
reviewerProtocol remains paused and has not relaunched as of May 2026; Resolv Labs posted an update on X on 2026-05-11The postmortem supports a pause in April. I found no May 2026 source, and no source for the X post. The page is now more than five months past May, so the status is stale. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Resolv TVL peaks at approximately $448 million, per DeFiLlama.”
reviewerPeak TVL of about $448M on 2025-01-06 per DeFiLlama; $10M seed round April 2025 led by Cyber.Fund and Maven 11I did not check the DeFiLlama figure, and the cited Defiant page is unarchived. The seed round is corroborated by several outlets in search results. The $448M and the token-allocation percentages are unchecked.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Security & Audits
“At its lowest point, USR traded at approximately $0.0025 on Curve (a 99.75% depeg) before partially recovering to around $0.85 in subsequent hours.”
reviewerUSR bottomed at $0.0025 on Curve (99.75% depeg)Only Halborn gives $0.0025. Search summaries of Rekt and BlockEden report $0.025 (about 97.5%), and Chainalysis reports $0.20; I read those only through search snippets, not the pages. Sources disagree, and the page states one figure as fact. I did not propose a correction. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Security & Audits
“Attackers obtained GitHub credentials from a compromised third-party contractor project.”
reviewerAttackers got GitHub credentials from a compromised third-party contractor and deployed a malicious GitHub Actions workflowTwo of the cited sources do not support the vector. Only Rekt, via search summary, supports it, and Rekt is not cited. The postmortem fetch did not describe this chain either. - #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Security & Audits
“Fluid/Instadapp absorbed over $10 million in bad debt and saw $300 million in outflows in a single day, and 15 Morpho vaults were impacted.”
reviewerFluid/Instadapp absorbed over $10M bad debt; 15 Morpho vaults impactedBad debt and Morpho count confirmed. I did not verify the $300M outflow.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security & Audits
“Protocol smart contracts were paused at 05:16 UTC on March 22. Compromised credentials were revoked at 05:30 UTC.”
reviewerAttacker minted 50M USR at 02:21:35 UTC and 30M at about 03:41 UTC; contracts paused 05:16 UTC; credentials revoked 05:30 UTC; about 46M of 80M burned/blacklistedTimes and amounts match the official postmortem. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security & Audits
“depositing only approximately $100,000–$200,000 USDC to receive 80M USR, roughly a 500x overcreation.”
reviewerAttacker extracted about $23-25M in ETH by minting 80M unbacked USR for roughly $100K-$200K USDCConsistent across Chainalysis and Halborn. The 500x multiple is the page's own arithmetic. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Risk Assessment
“Users who held USR prior to the hack are being compensated at a 1:1 rate, with the majority of pre-incident redemptions processed.”
reviewerPre-hack USR holders compensated 1:1 with most redemptions processedMatches the postmortem. The page says 'processed' where the source says 'processed or in the pipeline'.
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.