Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Resupply against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
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.
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Attacker deposits about 1,607 ETH (roughly $6.5M) into Tornado Cash.”
reviewerAttacker deposited roughly 1,607 ETH (about $6.5M) into Tornado Cash.Not read. Rekt confirms Tornado Cash use but gives no amounts. The page's 2,280 ETH and 1,607 ETH figures may be partially overlapping, and the page presents them as separate.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: June 2025 exploit: ERC-4626 donation attack
“Reports differ on the date and timing: one page dates the attack June 26, 2025 and says the vault had been live for about 95 minutes, while the other gives June 25–26, 2025 and about two hours.”
reviewerExploit date and vault lifetime (June 25-26, 2025; about 95 minutes to two hours).Figures are in the reported range. The sentence refers to 'one page' and 'the other', which is merge-artifact wording that does not belong in a published article. Rekt gives June 25. - #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Post-exploit communication and governance controversy
“The residual 1.13 million reUSD was to be carried by the DAO and repaid through protocol fees and RSUP revenue, with Yearn providing a loan for that portion.”
reviewerRecovery plan: 6M reUSD burned from the insurance pool, about 15.5%, remainder carried by DAO, shortened three-day vote, 2.5M RSUP incentive, Yearn loan.Burn and remainder match The Block. The Yearn loan was a later development (YIP-86) rather than part of the original proposal, so the sequencing is compressed. The 2.5M RSUP figure was not verified. - #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Post-exploit communication and governance controversy
“On June 30, 2025, the team published a governance proposal to burn 6 million reUSD from the insurance pool, about 15.5% of its roughly $38.7 million holdings”
reviewerRecovery plan vote of three days and effect three days after approval; burn about 15.5% of ~$38.7M pool.The Block's URL is dated June 29, 2025, so 'June 30' may be off by one day (the CryptoTimes article is dated June 30). Not conclusive.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Market impact
“According to Rekt News, ChainSecurity and yAudit (later rebranded Electi) reviewed the protocol three to four months before the exploit.”
reviewerChainSecurity and yAudit (now Electi) reviewed the protocol three to four months before the exploit; ChainSecurity said vault deployment and secure initialization was not in scope.Supported. Rekt also reports Electi said the price rounding was in scope, a nuance the page omits. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Post-exploit communication and governance controversy
“By August 2025 Resupply announced full repayment of the $10 million bad debt, using treasury funds, the insurance pool burn and support from the Convex and Yearn sub-DAOs ($8.8 million via the burn and contributions, $1.13 million via the Yearn loan).”
reviewerBy August 2025 Resupply announced full repayment of the $10M bad debt, with $8.8M from burn/contributions and $1.13M from a Yearn loan.Corroborated by an alternative source. The cited AInvest URL was blocked, but the claim is supported elsewhere. The sreUSD 'off-peg boost' detail was not verified. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“stole an estimated $9.3–9.8 million”
reviewerStolen funds total approximately $9.3-9.8 million.The range is consistent with the sources.