Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T07:08:48.169Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"da445d42-9342-4797-a1ed-1df8f09ac52a","new_score":40,"page_slug":"bfusd","prev_score":52,"reason":"The review checked 22 factual claims on the BFUSD page: 12 confirmed, 3 partially supported, 3 unverifiable, 1 disputed, 1 outdated, and 2 backed only by dead links. That puts roughly 18% of claims in the disputed-or-unverifiable category, which calls for revisions rather than approval or removal. On the plus side, the page's most important claim -- that BFUSD is a reward-bearing Binance Futures margin asset and not a stablecoin -- is directly confirmed against Binance's own blog and FAQ, correctly departing from several of the page's own secondary sources (OKX, CoinGecko, Cryptopolitan) that mislabel it. Set against that, the page describes its ~100.86% collateralization ratio as 'independently reported' when it in fact traces only to Binance's own self-published transparency dashboard, with no independent audit or attestation behind it -- a mischaracterization of the product's central risk figure, and a high-priority gap the reviewer flagged directly. The page also gives an incorrect date for the SEC's dismissal of its Binance case (May 1, 2025, versus the actual May 29, 2025), presents USDT/USDC purchase support as current when Binance discontinued USDC for BFUSD on August 25, 2025, cites two now-dead links behind self-reported market-cap figures, and draws an uncited comparison between BFUSD and FTX's collapsed FTT token. None of this undermines the page's core narrative, but together the errors and provenance issues warrant a moderate score reduction and revision rather than a clean pass.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}