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 · Astrid Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464460258
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T10:22:32.804Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T10:23:04.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T10:23:04.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Fan8HsSFxXMqYemghZ4BwiPnbVqsCbmR9pTH5XSAntLj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1492 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"519b50367eaa0830ecdb1779748ae949","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T10:22:32.511Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3333,"investigation_id":"bdadc939-db8a-469e-9f90-efc0aa2e2810","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":55,"page_slug":"astrid-finance","prev_score":55,"reason":"The core exploit facts (date, attacker address, transaction hash, mechanism, roughly 127 ETH lost, and the 80% return before the deadline) matched independent reporting (claim_findings[0], [1], [3]). Of the six claims that could be checked, two could not be supported by any source (about 33%): the ZachXBT flag, which the page states as fact in its heading while admitting it cannot be verified (claim_findings[4]), and the AstridDAO disambiguation, which is low risk (claim_findings[7]). Two further claims were excluded because the sources blocked the reviewer, and the page relies heavily on those blocked sources, so a high-priority coverage gap remains. Because no claim was disputed, the core allegations hold, and the reviewer's confidence is moderate, the penalty is set at the mild end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}