Prior rug/exit-scam affiliation
Falcon Finance's assessment for RD-F-115 — scored yellow on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
No confirmed rug-pull or exit-scam affiliation for Falcon Finance or named team members. Grachev's 2015 fraud conviction involves cargo theft (offline/physical), not a DeFi rug. DWF Labs pump-and-dump allegations remain unproven in a legal or rug-classification sense. Web search for 'Falcon Finance rug exit scam' returned no adverse results. Data cache rekt.incidents = [] confirmed.
Detail #
The distinction matters: Grachev has an adverse track record (see F113) but no specifically rug-labeled DeFi event. The DeFi Defiant documented the USDf depeg as a market event, not an exit scam. The profile-flagged fact 'DWF Labs pump-and-dump allegations' are serious but are not rug-classifications in the sense required by F115 (protocol rug / exit scam). Scored yellow rather than green because the overall pattern of DWF Labs behavior (pump-and-dump, insider conflict) is adjacent to exit-scam-class risk even if the specific label does not apply.
Sources #
- URLDWF Labs-backed USDf depegs as red flags raised over quality of backing | ProtosProtos — USDf depeg analysis; DWF Labs market-making conflict documented but not classified as rug/exit scamretrieved 2026-05-12
- Falcon Finance data cache — rekt incidents empty00-data-cache.json — rekt.incidents: [] (empty); no rug or exit-scam event in the hacks databaseretrieved 2026-05-12
Methodology #
Determine whether any team member is linked via verified OSINT to a prior rug or exit-scam-labeled protocol.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →