Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read ValueDefi 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
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Exploit 2: vStake pool re-initialization (May 5, 2021)
“Nine of the 16 vSwap pools were drained”
reviewerNine of the 16 vSwap pools were drainedNeither REKT article gives the count. The SlowMist post-mortem was not fetched, so I could not confirm it there.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #1[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Exploit 2: vStake pool re-initialization (May 5, 2021)
“assets taken included about 15,000 BNB, FARM, BASv2 (about $8.5 million of the total), BDO, BUSD, MDG, VBOND and FIRO”
reviewerThird exploit took assets including BASv2 amounting to about $8.5 million of the totalTotal of about $11M and May 8 date are supported by REKT 3. The $8.5M-for-BASv2 figure is not, and BAC is omitted. Note that REKT 3 is not cited on the page; the section cites rekt-news/value-rekt2, which covers the second exploit. - #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Value DeFi becomes the first protocol to appear twice on the rekt.news leaderboard.”
reviewerValue DeFi became the first protocol to appear twice on the rekt leaderboard, placed in the third-exploit entryThe claim is true, but it follows from the second exploit (REKT 2), not the third. The timeline entry cites SlowMist, which does not support this part.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #4[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“VALUE falls about 27-30%.”
reviewerThe first exploit drained about $7.4M in DAI on Nov 14 2020, with VALUE falling 27.9% from about $2.76 to $1.99The price drop and date match CoinDesk. The page already notes that the loss figures vary by source. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Exploit 2: vStake pool re-initialization (May 5, 2021)
“The initialize() function lacked the statement 'initialized = true', letting the attacker re-initialize the pool, assume the owner role and call governanceRecoverUnsupported() to drain funds.”
reviewerSecond exploit on May 5 2021 at 3:22 AM UTC, about $10M, caused by the missing 'initialized = true' lineMatches REKT 2. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Exploit 3: vSwap Bancor-formula exploit (May 8, 2021)
“About three days later, on approximately May 8, 2021, the vSwap AMM on BSC was exploited, for about $11 million per one account”
reviewerThe page presents the third exploit as a separate vSwap incident of about $11M on May 8, 2021Date and amount confirmed. REKT 3 is not among the cited sources and should be added.