Is “100%” or “a crypto scam” true? How to check the claim
About this check
If the post says “100%” or calls something “a crypto scam,” do not treat the wording itself as proof. Start with the exact claim: What, specifically, is being said? Who is supposed to have said or done it? When did it happen? Is the post describing a fact, making a prediction, or giving an opinion?
A finished check should give you a clear conclusion, the evidence behind it, and the limits of that evidence. The conclusion may be true, false, or inconclusive. “Inconclusive” is a useful answer when the available evidence cannot settle the claim; forcing a yes or no can make a check less reliable.
The manual method
1. Preserve the original
Save the screenshot or copy the complete text before investigating. Record the account or page that posted it, the date shown, and the link if one is available. A cropped image can remove the sentence that changes the meaning. A repost can also lose the original context.
If the claim is in an image, transcribe the words exactly, including names, numbers, dates, URLs, and punctuation. Do not silently correct a spelling mistake or turn a question into a statement. Small changes can produce results about a different claim.
2. Separate the claims
“100%” is not a complete claim by itself. It might describe certainty, a return, a guarantee, or a quoted percentage. “Crypto scam” is also a conclusion, not yet an explanation. Break the post into checkable parts:
- What happened?
- Which person, project, token, or website is involved?
- What evidence is offered?
- Is the statement about the past, the present, or a future result?
Check each factual part separately. A post can contain one accurate detail and still use it to support an unsupported conclusion.
3. Find the underlying evidence
Follow links back to the original source. Read beyond the headline or screenshot. Look for a dated announcement, a filing, a transaction record, a project document, or a direct statement from the relevant party. Check whether the source actually supports the wording being shared, rather than merely discussing a related subject.
For a crypto-related claim, inspect the exact project and network named in the post. Similar names, copied branding, and old announcements can make unrelated information look relevant. Treat promises of certainty, guaranteed returns, urgency, or requests to send funds as reasons to pause—not as proof on their own.
4. Check time and context
A result that was accurate at one point may not answer a current question. Check when the material was published and whether the post has changed the date, location, amount, or conditions. Look for the full conversation around a screenshot instead of relying on a single cropped reply.
5. Compare independent material
Search the distinctive wording in quotation marks, then compare the original source with reporting or documentation that independently addresses the same event. Repeated copies of one post are still one source. If the evidence conflicts, identify what each source actually establishes and what remains unproven.
Where manual checking stops working
Manual research cannot settle every claim. The original post may be deleted, the image may be cropped, the relevant records may be unavailable, or the available sources may repeat one another without adding evidence. A current search can also miss information that appears later. In those situations, the responsible result is to mark the claim as unresolved rather than fill the gap with confidence.
Image context creates another limit. An image may be genuine but used to support a false caption, or altered in a way that is not obvious from a quick glance. You need to check both the image and the claim attached to it. A screenshot can also contain text that is easy to misread or retype incorrectly.
What VOM returns
VOM answers a checked claim with a verdict, a confidence score, and any sources it found. Its verdict can be true, false, or inconclusive, so a claim the evidence cannot settle is reported as inconclusive rather than forced into a yes or no. VOM checks claims using real-time web search, can reuse a closely matching earlier check when a claim is not time-sensitive, and shows the sources it found.
For an uploaded image, VOM tells you when it appears AI-generated. It can also read the text inside a screenshot, so a forwarded image can be checked without retyping it. That is useful when the thing being checked is an image rather than a clean, searchable sentence.
VOM also supports natural back-and-forth conversations for everyday questions, learning, brainstorming, writing, and planning. It offers local, world, and trending feeds of circulating claims, answers in the language being used across its eight supported languages, and can turn a written idea into a generated image. These are separate ways to explore information and create with it; the verification result remains the place to examine the verdict, confidence score, and sources.