← StableMagnetreviewed 2026-11-01 · 14 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read StableMagnet 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 the summary
“most of the stolen funds were eventually returned by late 2022”
reviewerMost stolen funds were returned by late 2022Sources conflict. Bankless says most funds were returned with no figures or dates; Revoke.cash says only a small part is confirmed returned. 'By late 2022' has no source.Proposed correction (not yet applied)most of the stolen funds were reportedly recovered by police, though only a small part has been confirmed as returned to victims - #2[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Post-Incident Investigation and Arrests
“According to the Quadriga Initiative, approximately $24 million of the stolen assets were returned by December 1, 2022 — roughly eighteen months after the original theft.”
reviewerQuadriga Initiative reports about $24M returned by December 1, 2022The attribution to Quadriga is not borne out by the cited page, and the figure conflicts with Revoke.cash.Proposed correction (not yet applied)According to Revoke.cash, Greater Manchester Police seized around $22 million in crypto in August 2021, but only a small part has been confirmed as returned to victims. - #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Approximately $24 million of the originally stolen $27 million is reported returned to victims, following arrests and cooperation from alleged co-conspirators, per Quadriga Initiative records.”
reviewerTimeline: about $24M reported returned per Quadriga recordsSame unsupported figure and date as sections[3]. The timeline entry has no source.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Greater Manchester Police are reported to have seized around $22 million in crypto, but only a small part has been confirmed as returned to victims, per Revoke.cash.
unverifiable
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: The Rug Pull: Swapped Library Attack Vector
“removing approximately 8 million USDT, 7.2 million USDC, and 7 million BUSD”
reviewerDrain broke down as 8M USDT, 7.2M USDC and 7M BUSDThe per-token split could not be found in the fetched sources. The sum of 22.2M matches the headline figure. - #13[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flagging
“StableMagnet is listed among entities flagged by the on-chain investigator community, including ZachXBT.”
reviewerStableMagnet is flagged by on-chain investigators including ZachXBTNo source ties ZachXBT to StableMagnet, and the section itself says no dedicated ZachXBT report was found. The PeckShield tweet was not readable.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: The Rug Pull: Swapped Library Attack Vector
“Stolen funds were routed through the AnySwap/Multichain bridge from BSC to Ethereum, then converted from USDT to DAI, in a deliberate attempt to obscure the trail.”
reviewerFunds routed through the AnySwap/Multichain bridgeThe USDT-to-DAI swap is supported. The AnySwap/Multichain bridge is not named in Rekt, which describes a Binance deposit path, and the page's own on-chain section also describes a Binance hot wallet hop. - #9[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview and Background
“The project attracted over 1,000 depositors before its founders executed a coordinated exit.”
reviewerOver 1,000 depositorsThe sources count addresses with non-zero allowances, not depositors. The page's own impact section says approvers included users who only made test swaps. - #12[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“An anonymous white-hat hacker goes public (via CoinTelegraph and Bankless Times coverage) with details of their investigation”
reviewerTimeline: white-hat goes public 2022-01-30The date is plausible from a Bankless URL, but the entry has no source and the cited URL carries a different year. CoinTelegraph coverage was not checked.
confirmed
6 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: The Rug Pull: Swapped Library Attack Vector
“totaling roughly $22.2 million initially, with the total rising to $27 million”
reviewerInitial drain of $22.2M rising to $27M totalConsistent across Rekt, Halborn and Revoke.cash. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: The Rug Pull: Swapped Library Attack Vector
“The StableMagnet team deployed a malicious SwapUtils library at address 0xE25d05777BB4bD0FD0Ca1297C434e612803eaA9a”
reviewerMalicious SwapUtils library addressAddress matches Rekt. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Audit Failure: TechRate
“TechRate was subsequently notified of the rug pull but allegedly took no immediate corrective action.”
reviewerTechRate audited GitHub code but not the deployed contract and took no action when alertedSupported by Rekt. Halborn and Quadriga do not mention TechRate. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Systemic Risk: Block Explorer Library Verification Gap
“they did not separately verify that linked external library contracts also matched the source code claimed for those libraries”
reviewerBlock explorers do not verify linked librariesMatches Halborn. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Post-Incident Investigation and Arrests
“investigators reportedly found a USB device containing approximately $9 million in funds.”
reviewerHong Kong group traced to Manchester, police arrests, USB with about $9MBankless says about $9M. Forklog says about $9.5M, so the page's 'reportedly' hedge is fair. - #14[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Background
“An unverified claim, reported by the Quadriga Initiative, alleged that members of the same team had previously been involved in similar exit scams on BSC under the names 'Moon Here' and 'WenMoon'”
reviewerMoon Here/WenMoon link reported by Quadriga InitiativeThe page appropriately hedges the claim as unverified.
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.