Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← Sturdy V1reviewed 2026-10-29 · 7 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Sturdy V1 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.

unverifiable 1partially supported 2confirmed 40 corrections pending · 0 applied

unverifiable

1 claim

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

  1. #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Current Status: Sunset of V1 in Favor of V2
    “A governance forum proposal titled 'Formally sunset Sturdy V1' states that V1 had not received active development contributions for more than six months and that nearly all of the protocol's total value locked had moved to V2.”
    reviewerGovernance proposal to sunset V1, with specified parametersCould not read the source. This says nothing about the claim. The timeline year '2024' is also unchecked.

partially supported

2 claims

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

  1. #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: June 2023 Exploit: Balancer Read-Only Reentrancy
    “Reported loss figures vary slightly by source, ranging from approximately $770,000-$800,000 (442 ETH) to a higher estimate of roughly $884,000 (504 ETH) when including related transactions.”
    reviewerLoss of roughly $770,000-$800,000 (442 ETH)The 442 ETH and $800k range holds. The higher $884k / 504 ETH estimate was not checked against a source.
  2. #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory and Legal Status
    “No regulatory enforcement actions by the SEC, CFTC, DOJ, or other government authorities against Sturdy Finance or its founders have been identified in public records searched as of October 2026.”
    reviewerNo regulatory actions, lawsuits or OFAC listing found as of October 2026The page hedges the absence claim appropriately. My searches found no contradicting enforcement action. The cited source is a 2023 newsletter that does not address regulation, so it does not support the claim.

confirmed

4 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Overview and Funding
    “In March 2022, Sturdy closed a $3.9 million seed and strategic funding round led by Pantera Capital, with participation from Y Combinator, SoftBank's opportunity fund, KuCoin Ventures, and other investors.”
    reviewerSturdy closed a $3.9 million seed round in March 2022Amount, date and investors match CoinCarp. The lead-investor attribution rests on the TokenInsight headline, which I did not fetch.
  2. #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: June 2023 Exploit: Balancer Read-Only Reentrancy
    “On June 12, 2023, an attacker exploited Sturdy Finance's reliance on a Balancer pool (B-stETH-STABLE) for collateral pricing.”
    reviewerExploit occurred June 12, 2023 via read-only reentrancy on the B-stETH-STABLE Balancer pool oracleMatches rekt.news.
  3. #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: June 2023 Exploit: Balancer Read-Only Reentrancy
    “The stolen funds were reportedly moved through the Tornado Cash mixing service shortly after the attack.”
    reviewerStolen funds moved through Tornado CashSupported.
  4. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Audits
    “It has been reported, including in a post-incident annotation on rekt.news, that the specific LendingPool contract version exploited in June 2023 fell outside the scope of the audits performed.”
    reviewerRekt annotation says the exploited LendingPool version was outside the audit scopeRekt attributes the scope note to Quantstamp; the page's wording is accurate.
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.