Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Roe Finance 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
3 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: January 2023 Flash Loan Exploit
“caused Roe Finance's spot price oracle to update the UNI-v2 token price from approximately 34.6 trillion pricing units to 43.2 trillion pricing units”
reviewerStep-by-step attack mechanics (50 rounds, 2.96 WBTC, 26,024 USDC sync, price 34.6T to 43.2T, $6.25M collateral, 5.67M USDC borrowed).Could not read QuillAudits or Neptune Mutual. A search summary of another write-up mentions a WBTC-USDC oracle and did not mention sync(), so the mechanism detail is unchecked. - #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: MEV Bot Front-Running and Fund Tracing
“The MEV bot contract at address 0x3a5b7db0be9f74324370fbd65b75850a5c82d176 extracted approximately $78,190, comprising 2.29 WBTC and 39,982 USDC.”
reviewerAn MEV bot front-ran the attacker and captured about $78,190 (2.29 WBTC and 39,982 USDC).Existence of an MEV bot transaction is consistent with search results. Addresses and amounts could not be checked. The $78,190 plus $76,728 retained figures also appear to exceed the ~$80K total loss and merit a source check. - #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Transparency and Incident Response
“Following the January 11, 2023 exploit, Roe Finance did not publish an official post-mortem, incident report, or public statement addressing the attack, the cause, or remediation steps.”
reviewerRoe Finance issued no post-mortem or public statement, and the Twitter account stayed active.A negative claim. Search turned up no post-mortem, but an absence of evidence is weak. A third-party analysis is unlikely to say 'security researchers noted the absence of any official response', so this attribution is unconfirmed.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT Flagging Context
“Roe Finance has been flagged by ZachXBT, a pseudonymous on-chain investigator known for exposing crypto exploits, scams, and fund tracing across DeFi protocols.”
reviewerRoe Finance is flagged by ZachXBT.The page itself admits no ZachXBT post on Roe was found, which contradicts its opening 'has been flagged' wording. None of the cited sources mention Roe. The correction is to the sentence only; the later hedge stays. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Overview
“The protocol is classified as a Lending platform on DeFi Llama and operates on both Ethereum and Polygon.”
reviewerRoe operates on Ethereum and Polygon.Chain list is incomplete per the search snippet. Minor.
confirmed
1 claimThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: January 2023 Flash Loan Exploit
“On January 11, 2023, Roe Finance was exploited on the Ethereum mainnet via a flash loan-enabled price oracle manipulation attack, resulting in a loss of approximately $80,000.”
reviewerRoe Finance was exploited on January 11, 2023 via a flash loan price manipulation, losing about $80,000.Date, loss, and flash loan size corroborated by secondary sources via search. The cited pages could not be read directly.