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 · Cozy V2
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 42 → 42 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443508396
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-18T17:40:34.003Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2U1weMNkVD1SjSp6Lk556Vu1Gfn11fvxdJwW7FEGgfCq
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1454 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-18T17:40:33.863Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"97186db0-8236-479e-9311-19e65b30abae","new_score":42,"page_slug":"cozy-v2","prev_score":42,"reason":"The core factual claims — the $427,000 Cozy V2 exploit on August 29, 2025 via a missing caller-verification check in completeWithdraw, the bridging of funds to Ethereum and deposit into Tornado Cash, the founding team and 2020 seed round, and the Euler-hack payout episode — are all independently corroborated by the cited sources (Verichains, Decurity, CoinDesk, Cozy's own mirror post) and by additional sources found in this review. The page correctly frames Cozy as the victim of an external exploit rather than conflating it with wrongdoing, and contains no unhedged fraud allegations. The main defects are structural rather than factual: all six page sections have empty content (only source lists survived into this snapshot), two timeline dates read as unverified placeholders with one internal ordering inconsistency, a materially larger $15.1M funding round is omitted from the financial history, and the page is silent on post-incident remediation (patch status, reimbursement, audit history) — an omission that cuts both ways since neither aggravating nor exculpatory information could be confirmed.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}