Influencers publish claims. We publish what the data says — on-chain receipts, exchange records, price history. Every verdict stays up, whichever way it lands.
The claim: A crypto educator's case study: one wallet turned $87 into $3 million in weeks on a brand-new chain, and the wallets are traceable on-chain.
We found the wallet independently, without buying the paid report. Every number checked out block by block: the token's creation, an $87 buy 26 minutes later, sliced sells near the top, seven figures still held. The part the pitch buries: the buyer entered the chain seven minutes before the first public post about it, funded by a wallet one hop from the token creator - and buyers in the same minute who lacked that access sold early and made nothing. The trade was real. The edge was access. You cannot copy access.
The claim: A dated, complete system: buy altcoins while BTC dominance is above 60%, hold through 60-50%, sell gradually at 50-35%. Bull run Q3 2025 - Q1 2026, collapse from Q2 2026.
Both timeline windows failed - the market peaked early in the predicted bull window and bottomed inside the predicted collapse window. Worse, the system's only sell trigger (dominance falling toward 35%) never fired, so a mechanical follower bought altcoins and is still holding: basket -49% versus -31% for simply holding BTC. A rotation rule with only a euphoria exit is long-only exposure with extra steps. The author's own track record shows he abandoned the rules himself.
The claim: After a big daily jump, the price usually dips back - so wait a day before buying.
Measured over 3,792 rally events across 30 pairs and 6.9 years: the observation is true - prices do dip more often than not after a +10% day. The advice still fails, because the mean is positive: the minority of rallies that keep running pay for all the dips, and waiting a day skips exactly those. Entering immediately beat waiting in 8 of 12 comparisons. Frequency is not profit; both entries have a negative median - rally-chasing is a lottery either way.
The claim: A researcher publicly scored XRP low while it was popular, months before we checked.
We test claims whichever way they land, and this one landed in the caller's favour: XRP underperformed the field after the call, exactly as the low score implied. Published here because a verdicts page that only contains failures is its own kind of survivorship bias - the standard is checkability, not gotchas.
One email a week: new downgrades, vanished portfolios, fresh verdicts. No tracking, unsubscribe anytime.