← Vulcan Forgedreviewed 2026-10-28 · 14 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Vulcan Forged 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.
disputed
1 claimThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #7[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Custodial Architecture and Centralization Risk
“identified 'Extreme' token concentration with 81.51% of PYR supply held by just three major addresses”
reviewerCertiK Skynet shows 81.51% of PYR held by three addressesCurrent CertiK page shows 86.43%; 81.51% not found. Figure may be an earlier snapshot. The 'three addresses' framing was not visible.Proposed correction (not yet applied)identified 'Extreme' token concentration, with a Major Holding Ratio of 86.43%
unverifiable
7 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #4[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Overview
“The project is headquartered in Greece”
reviewerProject headquartered in Greece (contradicts summary which says UK-based)No fetched source gives a headquarters. The page is internally inconsistent: the summary says UK-based, the Overview says Greece. One of the two is wrong or both are unsupported. - #5[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“Vulcan Forged is a UK-based blockchain gaming studio”
reviewerVulcan Forged is UK-basedConflicts with the Overview's Greece claim; no source found for either. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Custodial Architecture and Centralization Risk
“Additionally, only 27.49% of the codebase had been audited as of the CertiK assessment.”
reviewerOnly 27.49% of the codebase auditedFigure not found on the cited page. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Price Decline and Market Performance
“PYR reached its all-time high of approximately $41.72 on November 30, 2021, just weeks before the December 2021 hack.”
reviewerPYR ATH of $41.72 on Nov 30, 2021Not in Decrypt article; price-tracker pages were not fetched. Not scored. - #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Price Decline and Market Performance
“As of May 2026, PYR is trading at approximately $0.26, a decline of over 99% from its all-time high.”
reviewerAs of May 2026 PYR trades near $0.26Historical price not checkable. Search results suggest later 2026 prices were lower (about $0.115 per Coinglass, undated; ATL on 28 June 2026 per Revolut), so the page is possibly out of date. - #13[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Ongoing Risk Factors
“The project's website now shows a 'Coming Soon' page as of early 2026”
reviewerWebsite shows Coming Soon page in 2026Not fetched; the archived copy points to vulcan-x.io, a different domain, so it does not clearly support the claim. - #14[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Ongoing Risk Factors
“ZachXBT, the pseudonymous on-chain investigator, has flagged Vulcan Forged in the context of the 2021 hack and associated risks.”
reviewerZachXBT flagged Vulcan ForgedNo source cited or found; the claim carries no inline citation.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: December 2021 Private Key Compromise ($140M Hack)
“CEO Jamie Thomson stated: 'Someone exploited our servers, got the Venly credentials, and used it to extract the private keys of the MyForge users.'”
reviewerThomson's quote about server exploitSubstance accurate; direct quote is not verbatim. - #12[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“CertiK completes a second audit of Vulcan Forged smart contracts, finding zero critical or high-severity findings in the reviewed code. Only 27.49% of codebase covered.”
reviewerCertiK audit found zero findings; 'second audit' / Skynet listed 2021-05-14Date and zero findings are supported; coverage figure unsupported.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: December 2021 Private Key Compromise ($140M Hack)
“stealing approximately 4.5 million PYR tokens (representing roughly 9% of the total 50 million token supply, and approximately 23.7% of circulating supply) then valued at approximately $140 million”
reviewerHack stole about 4.5M PYR (~$140M) from 96 wallets, 9% of total supply and 23.7% of circulating supplyFigures match The Block. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: December 2021 Private Key Compromise ($140M Hack)
“PYR dropped over 30% in the 24 hours following the disclosure, falling from approximately $32 to below $21”
reviewerPYR fell from about $32 to below $21 (30%+) in 24 hoursSupported by Decrypt. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview
“In September 2022 Vulcan Forged raised $8 million in a Series A round led by SkyBridge Capital.”
reviewerSeries A of $8M led by SkyBridge Capital with option for $33M, September 2022Confirmed. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Custodial Architecture and Centralization Risk
“The CertiK Skynet page notes the team was 'Not Verified By CertiK' and there is no active bug bounty program through CertiK or third parties.”
reviewerCertiK audit Feb 10, 2023, team not verified, no bug bountyConfirmed.
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.