Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Superfluid 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
2 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: February 2022 Exploit
“The attacker's wallet address had been funded via Tornado Cash, complicating attribution efforts.”
reviewerAttacker wallet was funded via Tornado CashRekt does not mention it; other cited sources were not individually confirmed within the time budget. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: SUP Token Launch (2025)
“A Token Generation Event (TGE) concluded in November 2025.”
reviewerTGE concluded Nov 2025, after the Aug 2025 Binance Alpha listingA November TGE after an August trading listing is chronologically odd, and the date was not confirmed. The SUP post lists the token launch as Feb 19, 2025. Not verified.
partially supported
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: February 2022 Exploit
“A $1 million bounty for the return of stolen funds was offered and remains unclaimed.”
reviewer$1M bounty offered and remains unclaimed; funds retained by attackerOffer confirmed; 'remains unclaimed' today not verified. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Affected Projects and Losses
“Within 18 hours of the attack, Superfluid recapitalized 80% of affected addresses through a direct USDC transfer.”
reviewerSuperfluid recapitalized 80% of affected addresses; the rest is over 90% of value via longer-term planDirectionally supported by Rekt; the 80%/18h figures were not checked against the Medium post-mortem. - #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: SUP Token Launch (2025)
“Token allocation distributed 60% to the community, 35% to the DAO Treasury, 25% to the development team, and 15% to early investors”
reviewerSUP allocation percentagesThe page's figures sum to 135% and omit the foundation line. The source itself is internally inconsistent (overlapping categories), so no correction is proposed. The page should note the overlap. - #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“and has continued operating with additional audits and a native SUP token launch in 2025.”
reviewerProtocol has continued operating with additional auditsTrue as far as it goes, but it omits the September 2026 Celo incident.
confirmed
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: February 2022 Exploit
“On February 8, 2022 at approximately 06:17 UTC, an attacker exploited a critical vulnerability in Superfluid's host contract”
reviewerExploit occurred Feb 8, 2022 at about 06:17 UTC with approx $8.7M stolenTime, date and total match Rekt. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: February 2022 Exploit
“The attacker's address is 0x1574f7f4c9d3aca2ebce918e5d19d18ae853c090.”
reviewerAttacker address is 0x1574...c090Address matches.