← Superfortune AI (GUA)reviewed 2026-09-07 · 20 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Superfortune AI (GUA) 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
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Insider-Job Suspicions and Multisig Ownership Concerns
“The combination of factors — the attacker address having no prior on-chain history with the project, the failure of layered verification controls, the fact that valid multisig signers approved the transaction, and the speed of the subsequent token dump — led some community members and analysts to allege the incident may have involved insider access rather than an external compromise.”
reviewerThe combination of factors led some community members and analysts to allege the incident may have involved insider access rather than an external compromise.The individual facts cited are confirmed, but no source found independently documents 'community members and analysts' actively alleging insider involvement — only the team's own denial, which implies such chatter existed without confirming its extent or credibility.
stale
2 claimsThe claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.
- #12[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Market Impact and Token Price Decline
“As of early June 2026, GUA was trading at approximately $0.78 with a market capitalization of approximately $34.6 million, roughly 53% below its all-time high of $1.67, reflecting that the token had partially recovered from the post-incident low but had not returned to pre-incident price levels.”
reviewerAs of early June 2026, GUA traded at approximately $0.78, market cap ~$34.6M, roughly 53% below its ATH of $1.67, having partially recovered but not returned to pre-incident levels.The page cites a live, continuously-updating CoinGecko URL to support a fixed historical snapshot ('as of early June 2026'). That snapshot cannot be independently verified from the live page, and current data from both CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap (fetched at time of review) show materially different, far lower figures. CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap also disagree with each other on the ATH value and date, which is a data-quality caveat independent of the page's claim.Proposed correction (not yet applied)As of September 2026, GUA was trading at approximately $0.036 with a market capitalization of approximately $1.6 million, roughly 98% below its all-time high near $1.68-$2.35 (sources differ), reflecting that the token has not recovered from the post-incident low and remains far below pre-incident price levels. - #13[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Market Impact and Token Price Decline
“The fully diluted valuation (FDV) at current prices remains approximately $769 million based on a 1 billion total supply.”
reviewerFDV at current prices was approximately $769 million based on a 1 billion total supply.Same underlying stale-snapshot defect as the price/market-cap claim above — the FDV figure is off by roughly 20x versus current data.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The fully diluted valuation (FDV) at current prices is approximately $36 million based on a 1 billion total supply.
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #7[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Root Cause Analysis — Disputed Attribution
“Separately, Superfortune's own team stated that the attack was caused by the signer's private key being leaked — effectively a private key compromise on both Ethereum and BNB Chain — and denied that the incident constituted an insider job.”
reviewerSuperfortune's team stated the attack was caused by the signer's private key being leaked (a compromise on both Ethereum and BNB Chain) and denied it was an insider job — as cited to the team's May 27, 2026 X post.The underlying fact (private-key-leak attribution, insider denial) is independently confirmed by a later team statement, but the specific source the page cites for it — the May 27 X post — predates and does not contain that statement. The claim is true but mis-cited to the wrong source. - #9[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Insider-Job Suspicions and Multisig Ownership Concerns
“The Superfortune team publicly denied any insider involvement, attributing the event to a leaked signer private key.”
reviewerSuperfortune's team publicly denied any insider involvement, attributing the event to a leaked signer private key.The fact itself checks out against an independent source, but neither source cited in this section actually states it; same underlying citation gap as the section 1 finding above. - #16[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Project Background and Tokenomics
“Superfortune AI describes itself as the first decentralized application on BNB Chain to combine AI with Chinese metaphysical systems, including Bazi (Four Pillars of Destiny) and I Ching divination, targeting what the project characterizes as a $392 billion global metaphysics market.”
reviewerSuperfortune AI describes itself as the first decentralized application on BNB Chain to combine AI with Chinese metaphysical systems, targeting a $392 billion global metaphysics market.The $392B market figure is well corroborated, but the 'the first' superlative overstates what the cited source (and other coverage, which says 'one of the first') actually claims.
confirmed
14 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“On May 27, 2026, approximately 14.98 million GUA tokens intended for an airdrop distribution were redirected to a lookalike attacker-controlled address, resulting in losses of approximately $15.18 million and a roughly 76% token price crash within 24 hours.”
reviewerOn May 27, 2026, ~14.98M GUA tokens intended for an airdrop were redirected to a lookalike attacker address, causing ~$15.18M in losses and a ~76% 24-hour price crash.Multiple independent sources (Halborn, Cryip, ForkLog, PANews) converge on the $15.18M figure and ~75-78% decline range, consistent with the page's rounded ~76%. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incident — Airdrop Address Redirection (May 27, 2026)
“The legitimate destination address was 0x70ae7D3DECfB4C3aE996fb1c07092566F73D5c15; the tokens were instead routed to a visually similar lookalike address, 0x70AE678b457C5E1b3fD7AD9537F234dFc1795C15, during a multisignature transaction.”
reviewerThe legitimate airdrop address (0x70ae7D...D5c15) was confused with a visually similar attacker address (0x70AE678b...5C15) during a multisig transaction.Address strings match across two independent outlets. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incident — Airdrop Address Redirection (May 27, 2026)
“The transfer occurred on both Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain.”
reviewerThe redirected transfer occurred on both Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain.Corroborated by a source describing the incident as affecting both chains, though not one of the page's own cited sources. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incident — Airdrop Address Redirection (May 27, 2026)
“The attacker subsequently dumped the tokens on-chain over approximately nine hours, receiving roughly 2,784 ETH (approximately $5.66 million in net proceeds at prevailing prices), while the total value of the diverted tokens at the time of transfer was estimated at approximately $15.18 million by the Cryip May 2026 hacks report.”
reviewerThe attacker dumped the tokens over ~9 hours, netting ~2,784 ETH (~$5.66M).The 2,784 ETH and nine-hour dump window are corroborated by two independent outlets. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Incident — Airdrop Address Redirection (May 27, 2026)
“The incident was the single largest loss event across all tracked crypto exploits in May 2026.”
reviewerThe incident was the single largest loss event across all tracked crypto exploits in May 2026.Directly confirmed by the cited report. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Root Cause Analysis — Disputed Attribution
“According to Halborn's analysis, the attacker's address had no prior interaction with any Superfortune-related wallet, which makes standard address poisoning an unlikely explanation.”
reviewerThe attacker's address had no prior interaction with any Superfortune-related wallet, making classic address poisoning an unlikely explanation, per Halborn.Matches Halborn's own stated reasoning closely. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Insider-Job Suspicions and Multisig Ownership Concerns
“Halborn noted that the project's multisig protections and multiple address-verification controls failed to prevent the transfer despite being specifically designed to guard against this class of error.”
reviewerHalborn noted the project's multisig protections and address-verification controls failed to prevent the transfer despite being designed to guard against this class of error.Confirmed by the CoinInsider article, which the section also cites. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Market Impact and Token Price Decline
“GUA experienced a decline of approximately 75.8% within 24 hours of the incident, reaching $0.3044 according to CoinGecko data cited by PANews.”
reviewerGUA declined approximately 75.8% within 24 hours, reaching $0.3044, per CoinGecko data cited by PANews.Figure matches the cited source's own reported number exactly. - #14[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Team Response and Manta Network Connection
“Following the incident, Kenny Li, a co-founder of Manta Network and the primary public figure associated with the Superfortune incubation, posted in the community that a security incident had occurred and that 'recent token unlocks were hijacked,' adding that the team was 'currently investigating the matter' and would 'continue to update the community on the latest developments.'”
reviewerKenny Li (Manta Network co-founder) posted that 'recent token unlocks were hijacked,' the team was 'currently investigating the matter,' and would 'continue to update the community on the latest developments.'Direct quotes match the cited article closely. - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Team Response and Manta Network Connection
“CoinInsider reported that early internal review suggested 'possible address manipulation in the multisig flow rather than a confirmed exploit' in the GUA token contract itself. The token contract was described as intact.”
reviewerCoinInsider reported that early internal review suggested 'possible address manipulation in the multisig flow rather than a confirmed exploit' in the GUA token contract, and the contract was described as intact.Exact quote match confirmed against the live (redirected) article. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Project Background and Tokenomics
“GUA launched its Token Generation Event on November 27, 2025, with initial liquidity deployed directly on PancakeSwap.”
reviewerGUA launched its TGE on November 27, 2025, with initial liquidity on PancakeSwap and simultaneous Binance Alpha listing.Both cited sources independently confirm the date and PancakeSwap detail. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Project Background and Tokenomics
“The total token supply is capped at 1 billion GUA, with approximately 4.5% (45 million tokens) circulating at TGE.”
reviewerGUA total supply is capped at 1 billion tokens, with approximately 4.5% (45 million tokens) circulating at TGE.Exact match to cited source. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Broader Infrastructure Attack Context
“The Cryip May 2026 hacks report identified the Superfortune incident as part of a broader pattern in which 63% of that month's total crypto losses stemmed from infrastructure-layer attacks targeting governance mechanisms, bridge verification, and signer key management rather than smart contract code vulnerabilities.”
reviewer63% of May 2026's total crypto losses stemmed from infrastructure-layer attacks rather than smart contract vulnerabilities, per the Cryip report, which characterized Superfortune as an example of this pattern.Exact match to the cited report. - #20[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Broader Infrastructure Attack Context
“The incident ranked as the largest single loss event across all 41 tracked incidents in May 2026, exceeding all other individual exploits for that month.”
reviewerThe incident ranked as the largest single loss event across all 41 tracked incidents in May 2026.Confirmed by the cited report.
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.