Audit log

Every state-changing event for Sturdy V1: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1publishby system:backfill

   2026-05-29 17:03:34Z
   Score: ? → ? (no score change)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 422,980,007

   sig

   2fBL2DoaYAg9…7vjLw3tKcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   Fs5zX9XgYpns…J7ijQMrScopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (6381 B) ▸

   {"actor":"system:backfill","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","kind":"publish","page_slug":"sturdy-v1","published_at":"2026-05-29T17:03:34.065Z","sequence_num":1,"snapshot":{"content_type":"investigation","entity_name":"Sturdy V1","sections":[{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://sturdyfinance.medium.com/introducing-sturdy-f8b9c21a9b96","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://medium.com/sentora/a-deep-dive-into-sturdy-finance-eaa7598e36ae","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/sturdy-finance","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://defillama.com/protocol/sturdy","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://sturdyfinance.medium.com/sturdy-ethereum-launch-f545140b7c4e","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://cointelegraph.com/news/attacker-drains-800k-from-defi-protocol-sturdy-finance","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://decrypt.co/144188/defi-lending-protocol-sturdy-finance-hit-by-exploit-over-750k-drained","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://immunebytes.com/blog/sturdy-finance-hack-june-12-2023-detailed-analysis/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.certik.com/resources/blog/oracle-dependency-decrypting-the-sturdy-finance-attack","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://rekt.news/sturdy-rekt","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://eigenphi.substack.com/p/sturdy-finance-exploit-forensic-analysis","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://beincrypto.com/defi-sturdy-finance-exploited/","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.certik.com/resources/blog/oracle-dependency-decrypting-the-sturdy-finance-attack","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://immunebytes.com/blog/sturdy-finance-hack-june-12-2023-detailed-analysis/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://eigenphi.substack.com/p/sturdy-finance-exploit-forensic-analysis","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://olympix.security/blog/sturdy-finance-hit-by-reentrancy-exploit","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://rekt.news/sturdy-rekt","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://cointelegraph.com/news/defi-protocol-sturdy-finance-offers-100k-bounty-to-hacker-if-funds-are-returned","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://www.theblock.co/post/234376/sturdy-finance-bounty","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://beincrypto.com/defi-sturdy-finance-exploited/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://news.bitcoin.com/sturdy-finance-falls-victim-to-exploit-losing-442-eth-in-latest-defi-hack/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://decrypt.co/144188/defi-lending-protocol-sturdy-finance-hit-by-exploit-over-750k-drained","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://cointelegraph.com/news/sturdy-finance-defi-stablecoin-market-launches-after-exploit","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://crypto.news/defi-protocol-sturdy-finance-reopens-stablecoin-market-despite-falling-tvl/","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://sturdyfinance.medium.com/introducing-sturdy-v2-4a0135aca675","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://sturdyfinance.medium.com/sturdy-v2-1-month-recap-caf43e1a8ddc","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://defillama.com/protocol/sturdy","type":"other","url":""}]},{"content":"","heading":"","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":3,"name":"https://cointelegraph.com/news/attacker-drains-800k-from-defi-protocol-sturdy-finance","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://decrypt.co/144188/defi-lending-protocol-sturdy-finance-hit-by-exploit-over-750k-drained","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://eigenphi.substack.com/p/sturdy-finance-exploit-forensic-analysis","type":"other","url":""},{"credibility":3,"name":"https://rekt.news/sturdy-rekt","type":"other","url":""}]}],"sources_used":[],"summary":"Sturdy V1 was a DeFi lending protocol on Ethereum and Fantom that offered interest-free borrowing by routing collateral into yield-bearing positions via third-party protocols such as Lido, Curve, and Yearn Finance. On June 12, 2023, the protocol suffered a read-only reentrancy exploit that drained approximately 442 ETH (roughly $800,000) from its lending pools by manipulating the Balancer B-stETH-STABLE price oracle. Stolen funds were laundered through Tornado Cash within 20 minutes and were never recovered, despite a $100,000 bounty offer to the attacker. ZachXBT flagged the protocol in connection with the exploit. Sturdy subsequently launched a redesigned V2 architecture.","timeline":[{"date":"2022-03-01","event":"Sturdy Finance launches on Fantom mainnet","source":""},{"date":"2022-01-25","event":"CertiK audit of Sturdy Finance completed; Balancer dependency explicitly excluded from scope","source":""},{"date":"2022-06-03","event":"Sturdy Finance launches on Ethereum mainnet","source":""},{"date":"2023-02-01","event":"Balancer issues vulnerability notice warning dependent protocols about read-only reentrancy risk; Sturdy Finance allegedly does not implement recommended protections","source":""},{"date":"2023-06-12","event":"Read-only reentrancy exploit drains 442.6 ETH (~$800K) from Sturdy V1; attacker uses $191M Aave flash loan; stolen funds moved to Tornado Cash within 20 minutes; PeckShield and BlockSec report the attack","source":""},{"date":"2023-06-13","event":"Founder Sam Forman publicly addresses exploit; Sturdy sends on-chain message to attacker offering $100,000 bounty and no-prosecution pledge","source":""},{"date":"2023-06-16","event":"Sturdy Finance reopens stablecoin market; TVL has declined from ~$12.8M to ~$10.78M","source":""},{"date":"2023-07-01","event":"Sturdy V2 architecture announced with isolated lending pairs and two-tier modular design","source":""}]},"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 24cb4db4-8856-4c61-96f8-68820cf39fbbcopy
2. #2reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-18 20:31:17Z
   Score: 42 → 42 (no score change)
   The page's core narrative — a June 12, 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit draining ~442 ETH (~$800K) via a Balancer oracle manipulation, laundered through Tornado Cash, followed by a $100K bounty offer and a V2 relaunch — is well corroborated by contemporaneous, independent reporting (Cointelegraph, The Block, rekt.news, CertiK, BlockSec/PeckShield). The CertiK audit-scope-exclusion detail is directly confirmed by CertiK's own retrospective and is a fair, exculpatory-relevant fact the page correctly includes. The one claim the reviewer could not substantiate at all is the ZachXBT attribution in the summary, which has no traceable source and should be re-sourced or removed. A few timeline dates (exact Fantom/Ethereum launch days, V2 announcement date) are plausible but unconfirmed rather than disputed.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,508,520

   sig

   2VFWGiqcKvEX…ZGK2Er1Acopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   2TwDViSRps6S…QLBBz3Hbcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1156 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-18T20:31:17.666Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":42,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":42,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a June 12, 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit draining ~442 ETH (~$800K) via a Balancer oracle manipulation, laundered through Tornado Cash, followed by a $100K bounty offer and a V2 relaunch — is well corroborated by contemporaneous, independent reporting (Cointelegraph, The Block, rekt.news, CertiK, BlockSec/PeckShield). The CertiK audit-scope-exclusion detail is directly confirmed by CertiK's own retrospective and is a fair, exculpatory-relevant fact the page correctly includes. The one claim the reviewer could not substantiate at all is the ZachXBT attribution in the summary, which has no traceable source and should be re-sourced or removed. A few timeline dates (exact Fantom/Ethereum launch days, V2 announcement date) are plausible but unconfirmed rather than disputed.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 4094f284-d667-4795-ae77-d7253cffa766copy
3. #3review approve with notesby judgejudge

   2026-08-18 20:31:17Z
   Score: 42 → 55 (+13)
   This is a calibration review: the page's core narrative (the June 12, 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit, ~442 ETH / ~$800K loss, Balancer oracle manipulation, Tornado Cash laundering, non-recovery, bounty offer, V2 relaunch) is confirmed by claim_findings[1-4] and [10-12] across multiple independent tier-1/tier-2 sources, with zero disputed findings. The single incident on this page is a 'suffered' external exploit (calibration_assessment.incident_attributions[0], attribution 'b'), not team fraud, self-dealing, or misrepresentation. The current score of 42 (WARNING) treats the mere fact of being hacked as if it were own-conduct fraud, which the rubric's own anti-conflation guidance and triage classification (attribution: suffered, fraud_evident: false) contradict. The reviewer's calibration_assessment recommends 55 (low-middle CAUTIONARY), weighing the disclosed-not-concealed audit scope exclusion, transparent crisis response, and V2 redesign against the permanent $800K loss and the ~4-month gap between Balancer's public vulnerability disclosure (claim_findings[10]) and the exploit during which recommended protections were reportedly not implemented. That balance is sound and I agree with it; the negligence signal keeps the score in the lower half of CAUTIONARY rather than higher, but does not rise to the fraud/misconduct threshold the WARNING band is meant to capture. The unsourced ZachXBT attribution (claim_findings[5]) is a real sourcing gap the reviewer flags as possibly fabricated, but the reviewer itself characterizes it as a page-quality issue rather than an entity-risk issue, so it does not change the score and is handled as a note rather than a content-accuracy revision. Notes: (Remove or properly source the ZachXBT attribution in the summary — no corroborating post or thread was found and it may be fabricated or conflated with another investigator's coverage.) (Confirm the exact Fantom mainnet launch day (timeline[0]); only the March 2022 month/year is independently corroborated.) (Confirm the Ethereum mainnet launch date (timeline[2]) and the V2 announcement date (timeline[7]) — cited Medium sources could not be fetched, and independent reporting suggests V2's actual go-live may be closer to early 2024 rather than July 2023 announcement date given.) (Consider adding coverage of attacker identity/law-enforcement outcome, current V2 security posture (fresh audit, continued Balancer dependency), and current TVL, per coverage_gaps.)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,508,526

   sig

   nxAKYsUTfhV9…ZtTJKgtacopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   368DFwkc1q1N…xoaKwkYPcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (2845 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-18T20:31:17.666Z","decision":"review_approve_with_notes","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":55,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":42,"reason":"This is a calibration review: the page's core narrative (the June 12, 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit, ~442 ETH / ~$800K loss, Balancer oracle manipulation, Tornado Cash laundering, non-recovery, bounty offer, V2 relaunch) is confirmed by claim_findings[1-4] and [10-12] across multiple independent tier-1/tier-2 sources, with zero disputed findings. The single incident on this page is a 'suffered' external exploit (calibration_assessment.incident_attributions[0], attribution 'b'), not team fraud, self-dealing, or misrepresentation. The current score of 42 (WARNING) treats the mere fact of being hacked as if it were own-conduct fraud, which the rubric's own anti-conflation guidance and triage classification (attribution: suffered, fraud_evident: false) contradict. The reviewer's calibration_assessment recommends 55 (low-middle CAUTIONARY), weighing the disclosed-not-concealed audit scope exclusion, transparent crisis response, and V2 redesign against the permanent $800K loss and the ~4-month gap between Balancer's public vulnerability disclosure (claim_findings[10]) and the exploit during which recommended protections were reportedly not implemented. That balance is sound and I agree with it; the negligence signal keeps the score in the lower half of CAUTIONARY rather than higher, but does not rise to the fraud/misconduct threshold the WARNING band is meant to capture. The unsourced ZachXBT attribution (claim_findings[5]) is a real sourcing gap the reviewer flags as possibly fabricated, but the reviewer itself characterizes it as a page-quality issue rather than an entity-risk issue, so it does not change the score and is handled as a note rather than a content-accuracy revision. Notes: (Remove or properly source the ZachXBT attribution in the summary — no corroborating post or thread was found and it may be fabricated or conflated with another investigator's coverage.) (Confirm the exact Fantom mainnet launch day (timeline[0]); only the March 2022 month/year is independently corroborated.) (Confirm the Ethereum mainnet launch date (timeline[2]) and the V2 announcement date (timeline[7]) — cited Medium sources could not be fetched, and independent reporting suggests V2's actual go-live may be closer to early 2024 rather than July 2023 announcement date given.) (Consider adding coverage of attacker identity/law-enforcement outcome, current V2 security posture (fresh audit, continued Balancer dependency), and current TVL, per coverage_gaps.)","score_delta":13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 68743ee3-6d1a-43ec-a225-c8e3f71a878dcopy
4. #4reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-25 08:06:25Z
   Score: 62 → 62 (no score change)
   The page's core narrative — that Sturdy V1 suffered (rather than committed) a $800K Balancer read-only reentrancy exploit on June 12, 2023, followed by a prompt pause/reopen and an eventual formal sunset in favor of Sturdy V2 — is well-supported by multiple independent, credible sources, including a verbatim-verified quotation from Rekt News. The most significant issues found are: a seed-round figure overstated by roughly 13% ($4.4M claimed vs. $3.9M reported by the page's own cited source and independent aggregators), a mis-cited source for the Sam Forman/bounty timeline claim (true but attributed to the wrong article), a one-month CertiK audit-date discrepancy versus CertiK's own published record, an imprecise reopening date (June 15 vs. the actually-reported June 16), and — most substantively — a 'TVL remains modest' current-state characterization that omits Sturdy's much larger, independently reported Bittensor SN10 subnet activity (~$125-200M in allocated deposits as of 2025), creating a stale and incomplete picture of the protocol's present scale. No evidence contradicts the page's central 'suffered attack, not misconduct' framing.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,512,770

   sig

   4RZzyyP8rTru…kReSdNnMcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   72kjU8U3XXQh…fAv1N3pvcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1500 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T08:06:25.731Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":62,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's core narrative — that Sturdy V1 suffered (rather than committed) a $800K Balancer read-only reentrancy exploit on June 12, 2023, followed by a prompt pause/reopen and an eventual formal sunset in favor of Sturdy V2 — is well-supported by multiple independent, credible sources, including a verbatim-verified quotation from Rekt News. The most significant issues found are: a seed-round figure overstated by roughly 13% ($4.4M claimed vs. $3.9M reported by the page's own cited source and independent aggregators), a mis-cited source for the Sam Forman/bounty timeline claim (true but attributed to the wrong article), a one-month CertiK audit-date discrepancy versus CertiK's own published record, an imprecise reopening date (June 15 vs. the actually-reported June 16), and — most substantively — a 'TVL remains modest' current-state characterization that omits Sturdy's much larger, independently reported Bittensor SN10 subnet activity (~$125-200M in allocated deposits as of 2025), creating a stale and incomplete picture of the protocol's present scale. No evidence contradicts the page's central 'suffered attack, not misconduct' framing.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision b0e4f2f6-18bd-4231-8a39-b3fd48dc8255copy
5. #5review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-08-25 08:06:25Z
   Score: 62 → 54 (-8)
   Using the spec formula (disputed + unverifiable) / total claims, this page's disputed rate is 2/39 = 5.1%, well within the approve band, and the page's central narrative -- that Sturdy V1 suffered a Balancer read-only reentrancy exploit rather than committed misconduct -- is confirmed across many independent sources, including a verbatim-verified Rekt News quote (claim_findings[13]). However, two adjustments outweigh the low disputed rate. First, claim_findings[7] and claim_findings[27] both dispute the same $4.4M seed-round figure, which the page's own cited source (Extruct AI) and an independent aggregator instead put at $3.9M -- a single underlying sourcing error duplicated in two places, not two independent failures, but one the page should correct since it misstates its own citation. Second, and more substantively, claim_findings[22] flags the page's 'TVL remains modest at ~$290,000' characterization as stale: independently reported activity on Sturdy's Bittensor SN10 subnet (roughly $125-200M in allocated deposits as of 2025) is omitted, making the protocol's current scale look far smaller than reporting suggests. This is echoed by a high-priority, evidence-grounded coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]) rather than a speculative one, so per policy it pushes the verdict toward revise even though the raw disputed percentage is low. None of this undermines the well-supported exploit/response/sunset narrative, so the penalty is kept light and no status change or delisting is warranted.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,512,774

   sig

   3NoQCQtMqNeH…CRhuHWMecopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   C1U3DKPyHCSJ…PmGvD7ofcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1856 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T08:06:25.731Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":54,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":62,"reason":"Using the spec formula (disputed + unverifiable) / total claims, this page's disputed rate is 2/39 = 5.1%, well within the approve band, and the page's central narrative -- that Sturdy V1 suffered a Balancer read-only reentrancy exploit rather than committed misconduct -- is confirmed across many independent sources, including a verbatim-verified Rekt News quote (claim_findings[13]). However, two adjustments outweigh the low disputed rate. First, claim_findings[7] and claim_findings[27] both dispute the same $4.4M seed-round figure, which the page's own cited source (Extruct AI) and an independent aggregator instead put at $3.9M -- a single underlying sourcing error duplicated in two places, not two independent failures, but one the page should correct since it misstates its own citation. Second, and more substantively, claim_findings[22] flags the page's 'TVL remains modest at ~$290,000' characterization as stale: independently reported activity on Sturdy's Bittensor SN10 subnet (roughly $125-200M in allocated deposits as of 2025) is omitted, making the protocol's current scale look far smaller than reporting suggests. This is echoed by a high-priority, evidence-grounded coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]) rather than a speculative one, so per policy it pushes the verdict toward revise even though the raw disputed percentage is low. None of this undermines the well-supported exploit/response/sunset narrative, so the penalty is kept light and no status change or delisting is warranted.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision fb9ceac3-7130-4884-8986-c96f995a7951copy
6. #6reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-09-09 03:05:08Z
   Score: 54 → 54 (no score change)
   Findings-only fact-check (retroactive anchor of stored findings)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 445,506,055

   sig

   28EMqK7gUrRL…K4Jsb7dycopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   hBmKTXPq1n8i…MizHXp2Acopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (702 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"64daf0f86e8d00d47b54f509eb46aebe","decided_at":"2026-09-07T10:25:57.930878+00:00","decision":"review","findings_count":23,"findings_rows_hash":"4a6ce04a25a1acecb8068ff6b44f5b6804e1696434b40f0a73dbb4a0801a5e6c","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","mode":"findings_only_retroactive","new_score":54,"page_content_hash":"d4ddb005ed5c38c9e7e6c00d8e76f4f4be16b151ff872b3e65e0ba16917f461c","page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":54,"reason":"Findings-only fact-check (retroactive anchor of stored findings)","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision cbc29fca-e38e-4fb2-bbf2-a78c88f64798copy
7. #7reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-10-29 14:03:22Z
   Score: 54 → 54 (no score change)
   The funding and exploit claims I checked match the sources: $3.9M seed in March 2022, June 12 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit, 442 ETH / about $800K, Tornado Cash laundering, and the audit-scope note. The sunset-proposal claims could not be read because the governance forum was unreachable. The regulatory section cites a 2023 newsletter that does not address regulation. The $884K / 504 ETH figure was not verified. No shutdown or sanction contradicts the page.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 462,907,795

   sig

   2fE6dkw45yHG…aBPVWWJPcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   ETAycQWuYPiD…cFSNrgFbcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1308 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"f8a8a8b4d6170775467c158f388cef23","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-29T14:03:22.614Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"findings_hash":"FVRZ38smV9DGeLctetWMZKzs85zxNFPNS6FAK21htLd4","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":54,"page_content_hash":"03e2134e3cb2e36dafd90744f0e0ac6a2c543ad2ca2f06e5058ad60bcdccb80e","page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":54,"reason":"The funding and exploit claims I checked match the sources: $3.9M seed in March 2022, June 12 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit, 442 ETH / about $800K, Tornado Cash laundering, and the audit-scope note. The sunset-proposal claims could not be read because the governance forum was unreachable. The regulatory section cites a 2023 newsletter that does not address regulation. The $884K / 504 ETH figure was not verified. No shutdown or sanction contradicts the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":7,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 71991113-83b1-4326-9205-f0a0ecdfe915copy
8. #8review approveby judgejudge

   2026-10-29 14:03:23Z
   Score: 54 → 54 (no score change)
   Of seven claims reviewed, four were confirmed and two were partially supported (claim_findings[3], claim_findings[6]). None were disputed. One claim about the governance sunset proposal (claim_findings[5]) could not be checked because the governance forum was unreachable, so it is excluded from the disputed rate (1 of 7 claims, a coverage limit and not a defect of the page). The disputed rate is 0%. The review found no omissions and no shutdown, sanction or new exploit that contradicts the page. Two minor sourcing weaknesses remain: the $884K / 504 ETH loss figure was not found in a source, and the regulatory statement cites a 2023 newsletter that does not address regulation. The page already hedges both.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 462,907,801

   sig

   2b8ffTsDdAjh…WWQD8a2xcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   DmDEGmNWSzWq…nxrjS37ucopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1389 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"f8a8a8b4d6170775467c158f388cef23","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-29T14:03:22.614Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":54,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":54,"reason":"Of seven claims reviewed, four were confirmed and two were partially supported (claim_findings[3], claim_findings[6]). None were disputed. One claim about the governance sunset proposal (claim_findings[5]) could not be checked because the governance forum was unreachable, so it is excluded from the disputed rate (1 of 7 claims, a coverage limit and not a defect of the page). The disputed rate is 0%. The review found no omissions and no shutdown, sanction or new exploit that contradicts the page. Two minor sourcing weaknesses remain: the $884K / 504 ETH loss figure was not found in a source, and the regulatory statement cites a 2023 newsletter that does not address regulation. The page already hedges both.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":8,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 3f304089-eb6c-46a0-8180-ffe2f9c6d68fcopy