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_approve · KelpDAO
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 22 → 22 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 419339186
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-12T21:54:23.672Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- E4tibF8L3tRt7jLNUy5AkdaZbwfvy43V4ERr8pQAMXeT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1351 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-05-12T21:54:23.454Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"b3201664-21f2-4b65-b4dc-a85ecb74262d","new_score":22,"page_slug":"kelpdao","prev_score":22,"reason":"The reviewer examined 43 discrete claims and found zero disputed. All four partially-supported findings (claim_findings[3], [6], [15], [35]) involve peripheral details — a launch-date precision gap between November 2023 announcement and December 2023 token genesis, a TVL rounding discrepancy (~$1.7B vs 'over $2B'), a secondary audit-firm misattribution of the circuit-breaker finding (Halborn vs OpenZeppelin), and an unconfirmed severity label on the AI risk flag — none of which affect any core allegation about the exploit, the attacker, the financial impact, or the legal proceedings. The single unverifiable finding (claim_findings[23], the count of '11 Aave instances') is a peripheral operational detail. Two high-priority coverage gaps were noted — on-chain address-level forensics and independent resolution of the LayerZero configuration-approval dispute — which indicate areas for future expansion rather than grounds for denial. Reviewer confidence was 0.87, consistent with this approval.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}