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 · Fake MetaMask Update Phishing Campaign (May 2026)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-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}