Verify a decision
Every moderation decision on AVOID.NET is anchored to the Solana blockchain. You don't have to trust us — you can verify cryptographically that we committed to a verdict at a specific moment and have not rewritten it.
How verification works
- We commit. When a moderator accepts/rejects a submission, we serialize the decision into deterministic UTF-8 bytes (
payload_canonical_string), hash it with SHA-256, encode the digest as base58, and write it to Solana inside an SPL Memo v2 transaction. - We store the bytes. The exact bytes we hashed are stored alongside the decision in our database. Anyone can read them and recompute the hash in any language.
- You compare three values. Database hash, your independently-recomputed hash, and the hash inside the on-chain memo. If all three match, the decision is authentic and timestamped.
The on-chain memo format is
AVOID.NET|v1|h:<b58-sha256>|d:<id>|t:<iso>Find a signature on any investigation page's decision log, or run python -m src.verify_decision --signature <sig> for a CLI check.
Decision
review_revise · Lendf.me
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 50 → 50 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464257237
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T22:18:06.277Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T22:18:21.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T22:18:21.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FukA21Uu8ysdqpjk3nCqRYzemuHSsqYLHeM8sTxTpHHb
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1735 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"f998b3b6c4587e72410db94176b3047e","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T22:18:05.938Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.375,"investigation_id":"83cab2d1-6d9a-46e6-8786-9df49fcc4fe7","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":50,"page_slug":"lendfme","prev_score":50,"reason":"Of the 8 claims the reviewer could check (2 were excluded because the sources blocked the reviewer), 3 could not be verified (37.5%), which puts the page in the significant-issues band. The 'Compound appears four times' detail (claim_findings[2] and [3]) is not in the cited CoinTelegraph article, and the ZachXBT sentence (claim_findings[8]) has no citation and nothing found to support it. The page also omits dForce's 2023 exploit (omission_findings[0]). The core 2020 incident, the roughly $25M loss, the mechanism and the $1.5M funding round are well supported, so the penalty sits at the lower end of the band and the page is not delisted.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"The review reports a material omission (omission_findings[0]): dForce's February 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit of about $3.65M is not mentioned, and the page frames the later audit as a post-incident improvement. The percentage band is already significant, so the omission confirms that band rather than moving it."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}