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 · B² Network (BSquared) — Bitcoin Layer-2 Staking Contract Exploit
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 30 → 22 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443511665
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T03:56:27.062Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9sKqd3d8Wge9WEWThybqoN824ZjRGmJ5i4tNQgDkmCtq
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1334 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:56:26.667Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"c4c14081-8d50-49af-8b76-783b23252d59","new_score":22,"page_slug":"b-network-bsquared-bitcoin-layer-2-staking-contract-exploit","prev_score":30,"reason":"The review found no disputed claims out of 41 checked, and confirmed 32 of them outright, with a disputed rate of about 2.4% — well within the range that would normally mean no changes are needed. However, the review also flagged a high-priority gap: the page's laundering-path narrative relies entirely on news-outlet paraphrases with no independent on-chain evidence, wallet addresses, or forensic-firm analysis cited. Separately, a cluster of eight 'partially supported' findings, while not rising to the level of factual disputes, point to real presentation issues — most notably that the page reports the stolen amount as 4.1% of B2's maximum token supply without also disclosing that the same drain equals roughly 12.7% of circulating supply, a materially larger and arguably more relevant figure (claim_findings[9]). These issues warrant revision rather than a clean pass, even though nothing on the page was found to be false.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}