Audit log

Every state-changing event for $VLAD: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-08 02:14:23Z
   Score: 4 → 4 (no score change)
   The page's central and highest-severity claim -- that Vlad Tenev's X account was genuinely compromised on July 23, 2026 to promote a fraudulent 'Vladhood' token -- is strongly corroborated by multiple independent tier-1 outlets (CoinDesk, The Block, Decrypt) beyond the lower-credibility cryptonews.net source the page relies on primarily. The three-unrelated-projects-on-Robinhood-Chain framing holds up factually, though one of the page's own cited sources for that general claim does not actually discuss any of the three projects. One clear factual error was found (Vlad Finance is mislabeled as an Ethereum token when it is a BNB Chain/BSC token, per the page's own cited source), one specific date claim about The Green Bull's all-time-low is now superseded by live data, and one cited Phantom.com URL is dead with no working archive.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,505,448

   sig

   2P9qVnATh8QY…6tL1Pw9Gcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   jL3VeeWDZWy2…DLikYWm4copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1178 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-08T02:14:23.339Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","new_score":4,"page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":4,"reason":"The page's central and highest-severity claim -- that Vlad Tenev's X account was genuinely compromised on July 23, 2026 to promote a fraudulent 'Vladhood' token -- is strongly corroborated by multiple independent tier-1 outlets (CoinDesk, The Block, Decrypt) beyond the lower-credibility cryptonews.net source the page relies on primarily. The three-unrelated-projects-on-Robinhood-Chain framing holds up factually, though one of the page's own cited sources for that general claim does not actually discuss any of the three projects. One clear factual error was found (Vlad Finance is mislabeled as an Ethereum token when it is a BNB Chain/BSC token, per the page's own cited source), one specific date claim about The Green Bull's all-time-low is now superseded by live data, and one cited Phantom.com URL is dead with no working archive.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision f32b946c-9aef-493a-ba1a-4068745a8ed4copy
2. #2review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-08-08 02:14:23Z
   Score: 4 → 4 (no score change)
   The page's central claim -- that Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev's X account was compromised to promote a fraudulent 'Vladhood' token -- is strongly confirmed by multiple independent top-tier outlets (claim_findings[4]). Overall dispute rate is low at 6%, but the review surfaced a confirmed factual error in a secondary section: Vlad Finance is labeled an Ethereum token when the page's own cited source shows it trades on BNB Chain (claim_findings[2]). It also found a stale date claim about The Green Bull's price history that current data on the same cited source contradicts (claim_findings[9]), and a dead citation link for the Vladcoin entry with no working archive (claim_findings[3]). Because this page is an unpublished draft undergoing its first review, these accuracy issues should be corrected before publication rather than waved through, even though none touch the page's core allegation.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,505,456

   sig

   3hQHYg7Q8ceq…ifU793Ktcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   9anZ67rguP3A…XEKAebXrcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1238 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-08T02:14:23.339Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","new_score":4,"page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":4,"reason":"The page's central claim -- that Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev's X account was compromised to promote a fraudulent 'Vladhood' token -- is strongly confirmed by multiple independent top-tier outlets (claim_findings[4]). Overall dispute rate is low at 6%, but the review surfaced a confirmed factual error in a secondary section: Vlad Finance is labeled an Ethereum token when the page's own cited source shows it trades on BNB Chain (claim_findings[2]). It also found a stale date claim about The Green Bull's price history that current data on the same cited source contradicts (claim_findings[9]), and a dead citation link for the Vladcoin entry with no working archive (claim_findings[3]). Because this page is an unpublished draft undergoing its first review, these accuracy issues should be corrected before publication rather than waved through, even though none touch the page's core allegation.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 21d1915b-d69d-4aaf-b2e5-2b3a9cc6bff6copy
3. #3reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-09-09 03:04:54Z
   Score: 4 → 4 (no score change)
   Findings-only fact-check (retroactive anchor of stored findings)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 445,504,663

   sig

   2jSf718EKw3P…iPKMmKYYcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   Eg8wQXSRtPg7…muVuSrR3copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (695 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"27ba441626cd878db7046b8998a575bc","decided_at":"2026-09-07T01:14:44.489615+00:00","decision":"review","findings_count":14,"findings_rows_hash":"6a1b269c2713258e7823f438be8a67802e871781baa3cf9b148bfc55870e76cb","investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","mode":"findings_only_retroactive","new_score":4,"page_content_hash":"704bf05fe8f702c70cacd9be27769de87012dd51b2f824d160b2eb92d2ac864e","page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":4,"reason":"Findings-only fact-check (retroactive anchor of stored findings)","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision ce7d5f7b-302a-477f-80ef-900cf432adebcopy
4. #4reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-10-31 09:49:55Z
   Score: 4 → 4 (no score change)
   The core incident (July 23 hijack, Robinhood confirmation, explorer scam flag, July 28 Tenev statement on social engineering of X support) is well supported by The Block, Cointelegraph and Reuters. Problems: the Chesky 'similar social-engineering' claim cites a dead Digg link and is not backed by what I found; the roughly $10 million peak valuation is attributed to The Block, but I only found it in a low-quality blog; and the 31.6 ETH / 72M token figures were not in the Defiant text I retrieved. The market-status section depends on a listing the page itself says may not match the hacked contract. Several aggregator sections were not checked.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 463,644,100

   sig

   2VToTW72j9oc…jdhuPfcHcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   BqHUP8RXP2GP…u7reyyy7copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1528 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"e2c7515bc968bb67afaf5d3a93f4a3bd","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-31T09:49:55.528Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.3333,"findings_hash":"6aY4KuPEkydX1SwLjWNyNAxU1koRoPkDeRCCCH5BBYGf","investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":4,"omissions":{"material":0,"total":2},"page_content_hash":"0724fdd6a1e49afcba1fe45b8c7a3bfbc969e01a551d415e5940ce39d0c6187e","page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":4,"reason":"The core incident (July 23 hijack, Robinhood confirmation, explorer scam flag, July 28 Tenev statement on social engineering of X support) is well supported by The Block, Cointelegraph and Reuters. Problems: the Chesky 'similar social-engineering' claim cites a dead Digg link and is not backed by what I found; the roughly $10 million peak valuation is attributed to The Block, but I only found it in a low-quality blog; and the 31.6 ETH / 72M token figures were not in the Defiant text I retrieved. The market-status section depends on a listing the page itself says may not match the hacked contract. Several aggregator sections were not checked.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":12,"sequence_num":4,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 6efba44c-554b-44d7-b5ec-67c36afcacfbcopy
5. #5review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-10-31 09:49:55Z
   Score: 4 → 0 (-15)
   The core incident (the July 23 account hijack, Robinhood's confirmation and Tenev's July 28 statement) is confirmed by Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources (claim_findings[0], [1], [3], [11]). Of 11 scored claims, 2 were disputed and 2 could not be verified, a 36% rate: the Chesky 'broader campaign' claim rests on a dead Digg link (claim_findings[4], [5]), and the roughly $10 million peak valuation is attributed to The Block but was found only in a low-quality blog (claim_findings[7]). The 31.6 ETH figure and the market-status section could not be verified (claim_findings[6], [8]). The penalty sits at the mild end of the band because the reviewer's confidence is moderate, the proposed corrections rest on unfetched search snippets, and the unverified figures may reflect truncated fetches. One finding that relied on aggregator pages was excluded as source-blocked, and the high-priority gap (no on-chain analysis of the actual contract) remains open.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 463,644,104

   sig

   4uJgoi2vGj81…1qk3dDWdcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   E46GZeoTTDAx…JnbHakHScopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1624 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"e2c7515bc968bb67afaf5d3a93f4a3bd","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-31T09:49:55.528Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3333,"investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":4,"reason":"The core incident (the July 23 account hijack, Robinhood's confirmation and Tenev's July 28 statement) is confirmed by Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources (claim_findings[0], [1], [3], [11]). Of 11 scored claims, 2 were disputed and 2 could not be verified, a 36% rate: the Chesky 'broader campaign' claim rests on a dead Digg link (claim_findings[4], [5]), and the roughly $10 million peak valuation is attributed to The Block but was found only in a low-quality blog (claim_findings[7]). The 31.6 ETH figure and the market-status section could not be verified (claim_findings[6], [8]). The penalty sits at the mild end of the band because the reviewer's confidence is moderate, the proposed corrections rest on unfetched search snippets, and the unverified figures may reflect truncated fetches. One finding that relied on aggregator pages was excluded as source-blocked, and the high-priority gap (no on-chain analysis of the actual contract) remains open.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"scored_claims":12,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision e8a036ac-4709-456d-a34a-f91b2b95ce52copy
6. #6reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-11-01 22:04:04Z
   Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
   Core narrative (July 23 hijack, Robinhood confirmation, explorer scam label, July 28 Tenev statement) is well supported by Tier 1-2 sources. One claim is disputed: independent corroboration of the $22 million volume figure by The Block and Cointelegraph, which neither article contains. The contract name PonsLaunchFactory and the 'about two hours' duration were not found in any source I could read, and the broader rug-pull section rests on low-tier sources I could only check through search summaries.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 464,253,331

   sig

   632d6BwWucn8…izE9XgRFcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   6U4Uq5fkwYwa…2LLB6ECmcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1346 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"cde3a2ab64b5fb332aac99a329ebbf5c","decided_at":"2026-11-01T22:04:04.897Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.0909,"findings_hash":"7jcR9b4KDaQGds4uoftza4TMG2RVKLAaCfMpbLimdxdd","investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"omissions":{"material":0,"total":1},"page_content_hash":"4f4e34d7537ebcd7efe3f291b3d80c9493157a59009ca6583b88fe836c6a5c3c","page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":0,"reason":"Core narrative (July 23 hijack, Robinhood confirmation, explorer scam label, July 28 Tenev statement) is well supported by Tier 1-2 sources. One claim is disputed: independent corroboration of the $22 million volume figure by The Block and Cointelegraph, which neither article contains. The contract name PonsLaunchFactory and the 'about two hours' duration were not found in any source I could read, and the broader rug-pull section rests on low-tier sources I could only check through search summaries.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":6,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 9f97b3ee-e674-4708-a8af-15848f39c995copy
7. #7review approveby judgejudge

   2026-11-01 22:04:05Z
   Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
   Of 11 claim findings, 1 is disputed and none are unverifiable, giving about 9% disputed, which falls in the approve band. The core account of the July 23 hijack, Robinhood's confirmation, the 175,000-view figure, the 650 ETH estimate and Tenev's July 28 statement is confirmed by Tier 1-2 sources (claim_findings[0,1,3,4]). The disputed item, claim_findings[7], is the page's statement that the $22 million volume figure was independently corroborated by The Block and Cointelegraph; neither article contains it, though the figure itself is supported by The Defiant (claim_findings[6]). That sentence should be corrected, and the partially supported details (the PonsLaunchFactory name, the 'about two hours' duration, and the low-tier sourcing for the $18.43 million rug-pull claim) should be tightened, but they do not undermine the page overall.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 464,253,335

   sig

   34JrLrHXe41k…U4VceAqicopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   DrkGvdmJ3BBg…iUYA1DC8copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1796 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"cde3a2ab64b5fb332aac99a329ebbf5c","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T22:04:04.897Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0909,"investigation_id":"3035892c-72b1-4dae-a040-3375f8404fda","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"vlad","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 11 claim findings, 1 is disputed and none are unverifiable, giving about 9% disputed, which falls in the approve band. The core account of the July 23 hijack, Robinhood's confirmation, the 175,000-view figure, the 650 ETH estimate and Tenev's July 28 statement is confirmed by Tier 1-2 sources (claim_findings[0,1,3,4]). The disputed item, claim_findings[7], is the page's statement that the $22 million volume figure was independently corroborated by The Block and Cointelegraph; neither article contains it, though the figure itself is supported by The Defiant (claim_findings[6]). That sentence should be corrected, and the partially supported details (the PonsLaunchFactory name, the 'about two hours' duration, and the low-tier sourcing for the $18.43 million rug-pull claim) should be tightened, but they do not undermine the page overall.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"severity_override":{"applied":false,"band":null,"from_band":"approve","reason":"Not required by the rules: the only omission (claim-free copycat VLAD pools) is minor, subject_status shows the token still trading with no shutdown or sanction contradicting the page, and no high-priority coverage gap is open."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision cf2ba9bc-5246-43a4-b31b-fd076fc1718dcopy