DoubleChecks

What was claimed

AI found a critical bug allowing infinite XRP minting with $94 billion at risk that went unnoticed for nearly a decade in heavily audited code

Our verdict

Needs caution

The $94 billion figure appears in public write-ups as an estimate of potential exposure based on market value, but it is a theoretical worst-case number contingent on timing, price, and exploit assumptions, not proven loss. The available reports discuss the XRP Ledger payment engine and its long-standing code but do not establish that this specific code was heavily audited.

All 3 AI systems agree10 sources citedChecked Oct 11, 2026

Check your own claim

Paste any statement, headline, or AI answer — 3 independent AIs verify it in seconds, with sources.

Key findings

There was $94 billion at risk.

Misleading85%
2 of 3 AIs agree·Perplexity: Can’t verify

The bug existed in heavily audited code.

Can’t verify82%
1 of 3 AIs agree·Claude: Verified, ChatGPT: Misleading

AI found a critical bug allowing infinite XRP minting

Verified87%
3 of 4 AIs agree·Perplexity: Misleading

The bug went unnoticed for nearly a decade.

Verified93%
All 3 AIs agree

Verified against 10 sources

finance.yahoo.comcryptotimes.iocoindesk.comnews.bitcoin.comcoinbird.combinance.comkucoin.comthecryptobasic.comprimexbt.comcoincentral.com

Detailed Analysis

The central claim is supported by multiple reports: a decade-old XRP Ledger flaw could have created spendable XRP beyond the 100 billion cap, and no public-network exploitation was found. However, the specific $94 billion figure and the description of the code as heavily audited are not clearly established by the available authoritative reporting.

Why this verdict

  • The central claim is supported by multiple reports: a decade-old XRP Ledger flaw could have created spendable XRP beyond the 100 billion cap, and no public-network exploitation was found.
  • However, the specific $94 billion figure and the description of the code as heavily audited are not clearly established by the available authoritative reporting.

Claims checked

A critical bug allowed infinite XRP minting.

Misleading90%
The flaw could have created spendable XRP beyond the fixed supply through an integer-overflow exploit.[1] [3] Reports describe potentially very large or effectively unlimited creation, but “infinite minting” overstates the precise demonstrated capability.

This claim may mislead readers without added context.

There was $94 billion at risk.

Can’t verify78%
The sources confirm that the vulnerability threatened the 100 billion XRP supply cap and could have created billions of dollars in XRP.[1] [3] They do not substantiate the specific $94 billion valuation.

The bug was in heavily audited code.

Can’t verify82%
The available reports discuss the XRP Ledger payment engine and its long-standing code but do not establish that this specific code was heavily audited.[1] [3]

What other AI think

The claim is mostly accurate but contains a minor factual discrepancy. The bug was real, critical, and did persist for nearly a decade in audited code. However, the dollar amount at risk is slightly overstated—XRP's market value was approximately $88.8 billion, not $94 billion. Additionally, while AI-assisted tools were involved, the discoverers were researchers Cayden Liao and Veria AI working together, not purely "AI found" the bug.

Why this verdict

  • The claim is mostly accurate but contains a minor factual discrepancy.
  • The bug was real, critical, and did persist for nearly a decade in audited code.
  • However, the dollar amount at risk is slightly overstated—XRP's market value was approximately $88.8 billion, not $94 billion.
  • Additionally, while AI-assisted tools were involved, the discoverers were researchers Cayden Liao and Veria AI working together, not purely "AI found" the bug.

Claims checked

$94 billion at risk

Misleading90%
XRP's market value at the time was approximately $88.8 billion at $1.41 per token, not $94 billion. This is a material overstatement of the financial risk.

This claim may mislead readers without added context.

AI found a critical bug allowing infinite XRP minting

Verified85%
Veria AI (an AI tool) worked with researcher Cayden Liao to discover the vulnerability. Multiple sources confirm this was an AI-assisted discovery, though it involved human researchers as well.

Bug was in heavily audited code

Verified90%
Sources confirm the flaw survived countless code reviews, upgrades, and audits over its decade-long existence without being detected.
The core event — a decade-old integer-overflow bug in the XRP Ledger that could have allowed minting beyond the 100 billion cap — is documented and was fixed. However several details in the single-sentence claim are simplified or presented without context (notably the $94 billion figure and the characterization of the code as "heavily audited").

Why this verdict

  • The core event — a decade-old integer-overflow bug in the XRP Ledger that could have allowed minting beyond the 100 billion cap — is documented and was fixed.
  • However several details in the single-sentence claim are simplified or presented without context (notably the $94 billion figure and the characterization of the code as "heavily audited").

Claims checked

The bug existed in heavily audited code.

Misleading60%
The XRPL is widely reviewed and subject to audits and community review, but calling the specific code "heavily audited" implies continuous, exhaustive auditing that the public record does not clearly document.

This claim may mislead readers without added context.

$94 billion was at risk.

Misleading80%
The $94 billion figure appears in public write-ups as an estimate of potential exposure based on market value, but it is a theoretical worst-case number contingent on timing, price, and exploit assumptions, not proven loss.

This claim may mislead readers without added context.

An AI found the bug.

Verified85%
Public disclosures credit researcher(s) and an AI-assisted tool (Veria AI) with discovering and/or helping to identify the vulnerability before exploitation.

Share this result

Try DoubleChecks