Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Sequence
#3
Score
00 (-8)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
426522799
Off-chain at
2026-06-15T00:11:59.895Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
CPsdTkL9KsehxtmTYxVo1q69DNiGZZ86HwzBZTU9oJua
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1539 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-15T00:11:59.657Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"21f8cdaa-79af-44fa-aed9-9888ad52e83e","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fake-metamask-update-phishing-campaign-may-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core narrative of this page — a late-May 2026 MetaMask impersonation campaign using Permit2 drain mechanics, attributed to a drainer-as-a-service operation with $9M+ in losses — is well-confirmed across 19 of 29 assessed claims, with zero claims directly disputed by credible counter-sources. The page is flagged for revision primarily because quarklab.cc, cited twice as a security research source (claim_findings[7], claim_findings[9]), is identified as a commercial criminal drainer-as-a-service operation rather than a legitimate research firm, which is a material source credibility problem. Secondary issues include a minor dollar-figure inaccuracy in the Scam Sniffer statistic ($83.3M stated versus $83.85M per Scam Sniffer's own report, claim_findings[19]), a date attribution error for the SANS ISC campaign identification (March 9 is the Paubox secondary publication date, not the SANS analysis date, claim_findings[16]), and a minor title inaccuracy for 23pds (claim_findings[14]). Financial loss figures remain Tier 2 only with no independent blockchain analytics corroboration, consistent with the page's own stated confidence of 0.72.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}