Fact-check findings

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

1. #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Exit Scam Mechanics

   “Coinbase tech lead Andrew Choi issued a public alert on February 25 noting the sudden disappearance of the project's online presence.”

   reviewerCoinbase tech lead Andrew Choi issued an alert on Feb 25Not in CoinDesk or the CertiK fetch. It may be in the CoinMarketCap or CCN pieces, which I did not fetch.
2. #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Platform Context and Blast Network Response

   “ranks among the top three largest exit scams on token presale projects in 2024 by value lost.”

   reviewerRiskOnBlast ranks among the top three largest exit scams on token presale projects in 2024No supporting source was found. A $1.3M loss ranking in the top three for 2024 looks doubtful given larger 2024 presale scams.

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

1. #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline

   “IDO closes after reaching 420 ETH (~$1.25 million) cap from over 750 investor wallets.”

   reviewerIDO closed on Feb 23 after reaching the capThe page is internally inconsistent: the cap was reached 17 minutes before the Feb 24 withdrawal, yet the IDO is said to have closed Feb 23. The page also calls the IDO both 'uncapped' and cap-limited. CertiK's timing is from a summarized fetch, so I did not propose an edit. The timeline entry has no source.
2. #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview

   “The project held an uncapped Initial DEX Offering (IDO) beginning February 22, 2024, which closed the following day after raising its 420 ETH target.”

   reviewerThe IDO was uncapped yet closed on reaching a 420 ETH targetThe IDO dates are not in CoinDesk. 'Uncapped' contradicts the 420 ETH cap, and the one-day close conflicts with CertiK's timing.
   citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2024/02/26/blas…-pulls-13m-ether
3. #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview

   “It participated in Blast's BIG BANG competition and received an 'Undeniable' rating, which lent it a degree of perceived legitimacy and helped attract investor confidence.”

   reviewerRiskOnBlast received an 'Undeniable' rating in Blast's BIG BANG competitionThe source describes an X comment about the project's potential, not a competition rating. The same overstatement appears in the section 4 text 'positive competition rating'.
   citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2024/02/26/blas…-pulls-13m-ether
4. #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Platform Context and Blast Network Response

   “The rug pull raised questions about Blast's BIG BANG competition vetting standards, given the project had received a positive competition rating before executing the scam.”

   reviewerThe rug pull raised questions about BIG BANG vetting because the project had a positive competition ratingSame issue as the section 0 claim.
   citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2024/02/26/blas…-pulls-13m-ether
5. #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Linked Fraud Group and Serial Activity

   “According to ZachXBT's analysis published in April 2024, the same group allegedly responsible for RiskOnBlast subsequently moved approximately $1 million in laundered proceeds onto Blast to seed a new project called Leaper Finance.”

   reviewerThe group is linked to more than $20 million in losses, with Leaper Finance seeded with about $1M; ZebraLending held $311k TVLThe general linkage and the ZebraLending figure are supported. The $20M total, the Leaper Finance detail and the loss figures for Magnate ($6.5M), Kokomo ($4M) and Solfire ($4.8M) were not confirmed in the fetched source. The page hedges them with 'alleged'.
   citedcointelegraph.com/news/blockchain-fraud-…-for-new-schemes

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Exit Scam Mechanics

   “On February 24, 2024 at 14:35 UTC, the IDO creator called the contract's withdraw() function on the IDO contract (address: 0x25f8c342e430c85829ef5021c0720f0c60969840, created February 22, 2024) just 17 minutes after the 420 ETH threshold was reached, liquidating all investor funds in a single transaction.”

   reviewerOn Feb 24, 2024 at 14:35 UTC the creator called withdraw() on the IDO contract, 17 minutes after the 420 ETH threshold; addresses as listedTime, 17-minute gap and addresses match CertiK.
   citedwww.certik.com/resources/blog/risk-on-bl…ncident-analysis
2. #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Flows and Laundering

   “Approximately $494,912 was sent to ChangeNow (a non-custodial swap service), $385,743 to MEXC exchange, $193,055 to Bybit, $125,000 to Railgun (a privacy protocol), $24,800 bridged via ThorChain to a Cosmos wallet”

   reviewerFund-flow amounts to ChangeNow, MEXC, Bybit, Railgun, ThorChain and RangoBridge/BinanceCoinDesk's earlier figures ($360k to MEXC, $187k to Bybit) are lower, consistent with funds still moving at the time.
   citedwww.certik.com/resources/blog/risk-on-bl…ncident-analysis
3. #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fund Flows and Laundering

   “On-chain researcher SomaXBT documented the full fund flow and confirmed funds were stolen from over 750 victim wallets, with individual losses including at least one investor reporting a loss exceeding $12,500.”

   reviewerFunds came from over 750 wallets, and one investor lost more than $12,500Supported. 'Full fund flow' is slightly stronger than the source.
   citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2024/02/26/blas…-pulls-13m-ether
4. #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Platform Context and Blast Network Response

   “The incident occurred while Blast was still in its pre-mainnet testnet phase (mainnet was not launched until February 29, 2024)”

   reviewerBlast mainnet launched Feb 29, 2024, after the incidentSupported. Note that CoinDesk relays the researcher's listing of the contract on Ethereum L1, so the contract's chain is unclear.
   citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2024/02/26/blas…-pulls-13m-ether