← xTokenreviewed 2026-11-02 · 8 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read xToken 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
3 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: ZachXBT and Community Flags
“xToken has been flagged by ZachXBT, the pseudonymous on-chain investigator known for documenting crypto fraud, exploits, and rug pulls.”
reviewerPage treats ZachXBT flag as real while admitting no documentationNo cited source mentions ZachXBT, and the page itself concedes the context is undocumented. The 10/100 trust-score sentence also has no source. - #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“XTK token trades at approximately $0.0000244 — a decline of approximately 99.84% from its all-time high. Market capitalization falls below $10,000.”
reviewerXTK declined ~99.84% and market cap under $10,000 in 2024Not checked against a price archive. The figures are internally inconsistent: $0.0000244 against a roughly $1.36 peak is about a 99.998% decline, not 99.84%. Needs a price source. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Compensation and Recovery Efforts
“At post-hack token prices of approximately $0.192, this represented approximately $3.84 million in compensation — roughly 15% of the $24.5 million stolen.”
reviewerCompensation figures: 2% of supply, ~$3.84M, ~15% of lossArithmetic is internally consistent (20M x 0.192 = $3.84M). The governance forum cited has no archive and I did not fetch it.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: May 2021 Flash Loan Exploit ($24.5 Million)
“This incident marked the fourth exploit involving PeckShield-audited projects appearing on rekt.news's leaderboard.”
reviewerFourth exploit involving PeckShield-audited projectsBroadly consistent; rekt frames it as PeckShield's fourth leaderboard appearance. - #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Audit Failures
“This means no audit covered the vulnerable code at the time of the attack, illustrating that security reviews do not protect against post-audit code changes.”
reviewerAudit timing: the vulnerable code was added within three months after the auditHalborn's wording is that the code was added within the 3 months before the attack, not after the audit. Roughly the same effect, but the generalization is the page's own inference.
confirmed
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: May 2021 Flash Loan Exploit ($24.5 Million)
“The attacker borrowed 61,833 ETH (approximately $267 million) from dYdX via flash loan and used Flashbots MEV for private transaction execution to avoid front-running detection.”
reviewerMay 2021 attacker borrowed 61,833 ETH (~$267M) from dYdX and used Flashbots MEVConfirmed by rekt.news. The 'to avoid front-running detection' motive is not stated in the fetched text. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: May 2021 Flash Loan Exploit ($24.5 Million)
“Total assets stolen included approximately 2,400 ETH (~$10.3 million), 781,000 BNT (~$6.2 million), 407,000 SNX (~$8 million), and 1.9 billion xBNTa tokens.”
reviewerStolen assets list for May 2021Matches rekt.news. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: August 2021 Flash Loan Exploit ($4.5 Million)
“The attacker borrowed 25,000 ETH from dYdX and approximately 1 million SNX from Aave V1 and Aave V2, then executed large SNX sell orders on Bancor and Kyber to artificially depress SNX prices.”
reviewerAugust 2021 exploit: 25,000 ETH from dYdX, ~1M SNX from Aave, faulty require check, ~$4.5M loss, vulnerable code added within three months of auditHalborn supports the core technical account. The exact 04:43 UTC time was not found in the fetched text.
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.