#FactCheck - MS Dhoni Sculpture Falsely Portrayed as Chanakya 3D Recreation
Executive Summary:
A widely used news on social media is that a 3D model of Chanakya, supposedly made by Magadha DS University matches with MS Dhoni. However, fact-checking reveals that it is a 3D model of MS Dhoni not Chanakya. This MS Dhoni-3D model was created by artist Ankur Khatri and Magadha DS University does not appear to exist in the World. Khatri uploaded the model on ArtStation, calling it an MS Dhoni similarity study.
Claims:
The image being shared is claimed to be a 3D rendering of the ancient philosopher Chanakya created by Magadha DS University. However, people are noticing a striking similarity to the Indian cricketer MS Dhoni in the image.
Fact Check:
After receiving the post, we ran a reverse image search on the image. We landed on a Portfolio of a freelance character model named Ankur Khatri. We found the viral image over there and he gave a headline to the work as “MS Dhoni likeness study”. We also found some other character models in his portfolio.
Subsequently, we searched for the mentioned University which was named as Magadha DS University. But found no University with the same name, instead the name is Magadh University and it is located in Bodhgaya, Bihar. We searched the internet for any model, made by Magadh University but found nothing. The next step was to conduct an analysis on the Freelance Character artist profile, where we found that he has a dedicated Instagram channel where he posted a detailed video of his creative process that resulted in the MS Dhoni character model.
We concluded that the viral image is not a reconstruction of Indian philosopher Chanakya but a reconstruction of Cricketer MS Dhoni created by an artist named Ankur Khatri, not any University named Magadha DS.
Conclusion:
The viral claim that the 3D model is a recreation of the ancient philosopher Chanakya by a university called Magadha DS University is False and Misleading. In reality, the model is a digital artwork of former Indian cricket captain MS Dhoni, created by artist Ankur Khatri. There is no evidence of a Magadha DS University existence. There is a university named Magadh University in Bodh Gaya, Bihar despite its similar name, we found no evidence in the model's creation. Therefore, the claim is debunked, and the image is confirmed to be a depiction of MS Dhoni, not Chanakya.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The world has been surfing the wave of technological advancements and innovations for the past decade, and it all pins down to one device – our mobile phone. For all mobile users, the primary choices of operating systems are Android and iOS. Android is an OS created by google in 2008 and is supported by most brands like – One+, Mi, OPPO, VIVO, Motorola, and many more and is one of the most used operating systems. iOS is an OS that was developed by Apple and was introduced in their first phone – The iPhone, in 2007. Both OS came into existence when mobile phone penetration was slow globally, and so the scope of expansion and advancements was always in favor of such operating systems.
The Evolution
iOS
Ever since the advent of the iPhone, iOS has seen many changes since 2007. The current version of iOs is iOS 16. However, in the course of creating new iOS and updating the old ones, Apple has come out with various advancements like the App Store, Touch ID & Face ID, Apple Music, Podcasts, Augmented reality, Contact exposure, and many more, which have later become part of features of Android phone as well. Apple is one of the oldest tech and gadget developers in the world, most of the devices manufactured by Apple have received global recognition, and hence Apple enjoys providing services to a huge global user base.
Android
The OS has been famous for using the software version names on the food items like – Pie, Oreo, Nougat, KitKat, Eclairs, etc. From Android 10 onwards, the new versions were demoted by number. The most recent Android OS is Android 13; this OS is known for its practicality and flexibility. In 2012 Android became the most popular operating system for mobile devices, surpassing Apple’s iOS, and as of 2020, about 75 percent of mobile devices run Android.
Android vs. iOS
1. USER INTERFACE
One of the most noticeable differences between Android and iPhone is their user interface. Android devices have a more customizable interface, with options to change the home screen, app icons, and overall theme. The iPhone, on the other hand, has a more uniform interface with less room for customization. Android allows users to customize their home screen by adding widgets and changing the layout of their app icons. This can be useful for people who want quick access to certain functions or information on their home screen. IOS does not have this feature, but it does allow users to organize their app icons into folders for easier navigation.
2. APP SELECTION
Another factor to consider when choosing between Android and iOS is the app selection. Both platforms have a wide range of apps available, but there are some differences to consider. Android has a larger selection of apps overall, including a larger selection of free apps. However, some popular apps, such as certain music streaming apps and games, may be released first or only available on iPhone. iOS also has a more curated app store, meaning that all apps must go through a review process before being accepted for download. This can result in a higher quality of apps overall, but it can also mean that it takes longer for new apps to become available on the platform. iPhone devices tend to have less processing power and RAM. But they are generally more efficient in their use of resources. This can result in longer battery life, but it may also mean that iPhones are slower at handling multiple tasks or running resource-intensive apps.
3. PERFORMANCE
When it comes to performance, both Android and iPhone have their own strengths and weaknesses. Android devices tend to have more processing power and RAM. This can make them faster and more capable of handling multiple tasks simultaneously. However, this can also lead to Android devices having shorter battery life compared to iPhones.
4. SECURITY
Security is an important consideration for any smartphone user, and Android and iPhone have their own measures to protect user data. Android devices are generally seen as being less secure than iPhones due to their open nature. Android allows users to install apps from sources other than the Google Play Store, which can increase the risk of downloading malicious apps. However, Android has made improvements in recent years to address this issue. Including the introduction of Google Play Protect, which scans apps for malware before they are downloaded. On the other hand, iPhone devices have a more closed ecosystem, with all apps required to go through Apple‘s review process before being available for download. This helps reduce the risk of downloading malicious apps, but it can also limit the platform’s flexibility.
Conclusion
The debate about the better OS has been going on for some time now, and it looks like it will get more comprehensive in the times to come, as netizens go deeper into cyberspace, they will get more aware and critical of their uses and demands, which will allow them to opt for the best OS for their convenience. Although the Andriod OS, due to its integration, stands more vulnerable to security threats as compared to iOS, no software is secure in today’s time, what is secure is its use and application hence the netizen and the platforms need to increase their awareness and knowledge to safeguard themselves and the wholesome cyberspace.
What are Decentralised Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)?
A Decentralised Autonomous Organisation or a DAO, is a unique take on democracy on the blockchain. It is a set of rules encoded into a self-executing contract (also known as a smart contract) that operates autonomously on a blockchain system. A DAO imitates a traditional company, although, in its more literal sense, it is a contractually created entity. In theory, DAOs have no centralised authority in making decisions for the system; it is a communally run system whereby all decisions (be it for internal governance or for the development of the blockchain system) are voted upon by the community members. DAOs are primarily characterised by a decentralised form of operation, where there is no one entity, group or individual running the system. They are self-sustaining entities, having their own currency, economy and even governance, that do not depend on a group of individuals to operate. Blockchain systems, especially DAOs are characterised by pure autonomy created to evade external coercion or manipulation from sovereign powers. DAOs follow a mutually created, agreed set of rules created by the community, that dictates all actions, activities, and participation in the system’s governance. There may also be provisions that regulate the decision-making power of the community.
Ethereum’s DAO’s White Paper described DAO as “The first implementation of a [DAO Entity] code to automate organisational governance and decision making.” Can be used by individuals working together collaboratively outside of a traditional corporate form. It can also be used by a registered corporate entity to automate formal governance rules contained in corporate bylaws or imposed by law.” The referred white paper proposes an entity that would use smart contracts to solve governance issues inherent in traditional corporations. DAOs attempt to redesign corporate governance with blockchain such that contractual terms are “formalised, automated and enforced using software.”
Cybersecurity threats under DAOs
While DAOs offer increased transparency and efficiency, they are not immune to cybersecurity threats. Cybersecurity risks in DAO, primarily in governance, stem from vulnerabilities in the underlying blockchain technology and the DAO's smart contracts. Smart contract exploits, code vulnerabilities, and weaknesses in the underlying blockchain protocol can be exploited by malicious actors, leading to unauthorised access, fund manipulations, or disruptions in the governance process. Additionally, DAOs may face challenges related to phishing attacks, where individuals are tricked into revealing sensitive information, such as private keys, compromising the integrity of the governance structure. As DAOs continue to evolve, addressing and mitigating cybersecurity threats is crucial to ensuring the trust and reliability of decentralised governance mechanisms.
Centralisation/Concentration of Power
DAOs today actively try to leverage on-chain governance, where any governance votes or transactions are directly taken on the blockchain. But such governance is often plutocratic in nature, where the wealthy hold influences, rather than democracies, since those who possess the requisite number of tokens are only allowed to vote and each token staked implies that many numbers of votes emerge from the same individual. This concentration of power in the hands of “whales” often creates disadvantages for the newer entrants into the system who may have an in-depth background but lack the funds to cast a vote. Voting, presently in the blockchain sphere, lacks the requisite concept of “one man, one vote” which is critical in democratic societies.
Smart contract vulnerabilities and external threats
Smart contracts, self-executing pieces of code on a blockchain, are integral to decentralised applications and platforms. Despite their potential, smart contracts are susceptible to various vulnerabilities such as coding errors, where mistakes in the code can lead to funds being locked or released erroneously. Some of them have been mentioned as follows;
Smart Contracts are most prone to re-entrance attacks whereby an untrusted external code is allowed to be executed in a smart contract. This scenario occurs when a smart contract invokes an external contract, and the external contract subsequently re-invokes the initial contract. This sequence of events can lead to an infinite loop, and a reentrancy attack is a tactic exploiting this vulnerability in a smart contract. It enables an attacker to repeatedly invoke a function within the contract, potentially creating an endless loop and gaining unauthorised access to funds.
Additionally, smart contracts are also prone to oracle problems. Oracles refer to third-party services or mechanisms that provide smart contracts with real-world data. Since smart contracts on blockchain networks operate in a decentralised, isolated environment, they do not have direct access to external information, such as market prices, weather conditions, or sports scores. Oracles bridge this gap by acting as intermediaries, fetching and delivering off-chain data to smart contracts, enabling them to execute based on real-world conditions. The oracle problem within blockchain pertains to the difficulty of securely incorporating external data into smart contracts. The reliability of external data poses a potential vulnerability, as oracles may be manipulated or provide inaccurate information. This challenge jeopardises the credibility of blockchain applications that rely on precise and timely external data.
Sybil Attack: A Sybil attack involves a single node managing multiple active fake identities, known as Sybil identities, concurrently within a peer-to-peer network. The objective of such an attack is to weaken the authority or influence within a trustworthy system by acquiring the majority of control in the network. The fake identities are utilised to establish and exert this influence. A successful Sybil attack allows threat actors to perform unauthorised actions in the system.
Distributed Denial of Service Attacks: A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt the regular functioning of a network, service, or website by overwhelming it with a flood of traffic. In a typical DDoS attack, multiple compromised computers or devices, often part of a botnet (a network of infected machines controlled by a single entity), are used to generate a massive volume of requests or data traffic. The targeted system becomes unable to respond to legitimate user requests due to the excessive traffic, leading to a denial of service.
Conclusion
Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) represent a pioneering approach to governance on the blockchain, relying on smart contracts and community-driven decision-making. Despite their potential for increased transparency and efficiency, DAOs are not immune to cybersecurity threats. Vulnerabilities in smart contracts, such as reentrancy attacks and oracle problems, pose significant risks, and the concentration of voting power among wealthy token holders raises concerns about democratic principles. As DAOs continue to evolve, addressing these challenges is essential to ensuring the resilience and trustworthiness of decentralised governance mechanisms. Efforts to enhance security measures, promote inclusivity, and refine governance models will be crucial in establishing DAOs as robust and reliable entities in the broader landscape of blockchain technology.
References:
https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/sybil-attack/
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/satish-kulkarni-bb96193_what-are-cybersecurity-risk-to-dao-and-how-activity-7048286955645677568-B3pV/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-is-ddosdistributed-denial-of-service/ Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO, Securities and Exchange Board, Release No. 81207/ July 25, 2017
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10921-blockchain-based-decentralized-autonomous-organizations-daos-.html
.jpeg)
As technological advancements continue to shape the future, the rise of artificial intelligence brings with it significant potential benefits, yet also raises concerns about the spread of misinformation. Recognising the need for accountability on both ends, on 5th May, during the three-day World News Media Congress 2025 in Kraków, Poland the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) have announced to the public the five core principles for their joint initiative called News Integrity in the Age of AI. The initiative is aimed at fostering dialogue and cooperation between media organisations and technology platforms, and the principles announced are to be a code of practice to be followed by all those taking part. With thousands of public and private media outlets around the world joining the effort, the initiative highlights the shared responsibility of AI developers to ensure that AI systems are trustworthy, safe, and supportive of a reliable news ecosystem. It represents a global call to action to uphold the integrity of news in this age of major influx and curb the growing challenge of misinformation.
The five core principles released focus on:
1. Authorisation of content by the originators is a must prior to its usage in Generative AI tools and models
2. High-quality and up-to-date news content must be recognised by third parties that are benefiting from it
3. There must be a focus on accuracy and attribution, making the original sources of news apparent to the public, promoting transparency
4. Harnessing the plural nature of the news perspectives, which will help AI-driven tools perform better and
5. An invitation to tech companies for an open dialogue with news outlets, facilitating conversation to collaborate and develop standards of transparency, accuracy, and safety.
As this initiative provides a unified platform to address and deliberate on issues affecting the integrity of news, there are also some other technical ways in which misinformation in news caused by AI can be curbed:
1. Encourage the usage of Smaller Generative AI Models: The Large Language Models (LLMs) have to be trained on a range of topics. Businesses don’t require such an expanse of information but just a little that is relevant. A narrower context of information to be sourced from allows better content navigation and a reduced chance of mix-up.
2. Fighting AI hallucination: This is a phenomenon that causes generative AI (such as chatbots and computer vision tools) to present nonsensical and inaccurate outputs as the system perceives objects or patterns that are imperceptible or non-existent to human observers. This occurs as a result of the system trying to focus on both language fluency and stitching information from different sources together. In order to deal with this, one can deploy retrieval augmented generation (RAG). This enables connection with external sources of data that include academic journals, a company’s organisational data, among other things, that would help in providing more accurate, domain-specific content.
Conclusion
This global call to action marks an important step toward fostering unified efforts to combat misinformation. The set of principles introduced is designed to be adaptable, providing a flexible framework that can evolve to address emerging challenges (through dialogue and discussion), including issues like copyright infringement. While AI offers powerful tools to support the news industry, it is essential to emphasise that human oversight remains crucial. These technological advancements are meant to enhance and augment the work of journalists, not replace it, ensuring that the core values of journalism, such as accuracy and integrity, are preserved in the age of AI.
References
● https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Generative-AI-ethics-8-biggest-concerns
● https://trilateralresearch.com/responsible-ai/using-responsible-ai-to-combat-misinformation
● https://www.omdena.com/blog/the-ethical-role-of-ai-in-media-combating-misformation
● https://2024.jou.ufl.edu/page/ai-and-misinformation
● https://techxplore.com/news/2025-05-ai-counter-misinformation-fact-based.html
● https://www.advanced-television.com/2025/05/06/media-outlets-call-for-ai-companies-news-integrity-protection/https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/ai-misinformation
