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 · Hypervault Finance
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462182391
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T19:04:22.107Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T19:04:53.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T19:04:53.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6oRS27LzKhReE3DW8UkfwwGiz54pGyTqJrMdBCsgXABj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2572 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"2c37d7b371efca43242b0d0761b01ff1","band_override":{"actual_delta":-10,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0.4286,"expected_delta_range":[-30,-15],"expected_verdict":"review_revise","rationale":"Of 7 checked claims, 2 were disputed and 1 could not be verified, which is 3/7 (43%) and would normally fall in the significant band. This judgement uses the minor band instead because claim_findings[0] and claim_findings[1] are the same error (one defect group): the Zenith draft audit date is given as September 14-21 or 21, while the cited Rekt News report says September 24. This is a secondary detail, not a core allegation. claim_findings[6] (law enforcement filings in Singapore and South Korea) could not be found in sources but the page already labels it as alleged. The core facts (about $3.6M drained, about 752 ETH to Tornado Cash, addresses, alleged operator network, early warning) were confirmed, the page correctly says the project shut down, and the only omission (NodeSynapse) is minor. The date should be corrected and the law enforcement claim sourced or removed."},"decided_at":"2026-10-27T19:04:21.803Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.4286,"investigation_id":"45bd924e-7d36-44bb-b35a-d44591b0fa69","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"hypervault-finance","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 7 checked claims, 2 were disputed and 1 could not be verified, which is 3/7 (43%) and would normally fall in the significant band. This judgement uses the minor band instead because claim_findings[0] and claim_findings[1] are the same error (one defect group): the Zenith draft audit date is given as September 14-21 or 21, while the cited Rekt News report says September 24. This is a secondary detail, not a core allegation. claim_findings[6] (law enforcement filings in Singapore and South Korea) could not be found in sources but the page already labels it as alleged. The core facts (about $3.6M drained, about 752 ETH to Tornado Cash, addresses, alleged operator network, early warning) were confirmed, the page correctly says the project shut down, and the only omission (NodeSynapse) is minor. The date should be corrected and the law enforcement claim sourced or removed.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}