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 · Allbridge Core Solana Flash Loan Exploit (July 2026)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 22 → 14 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443505432
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-08T02:03:48.796Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Ag5ycKSuvQTzsjWAFA2ee1Ljtu4erma33TFm2jfRQgx8
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1681 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-08T02:03:48.633Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"faec5800-9619-42f7-95f7-64b6ca22289d","new_score":14,"page_slug":"allbridge-core-solana-flash-loan-exploit-july-2026","prev_score":22,"reason":"The page's core factual record is well-supported: the $1.65M exploit amount, Kamino flash loan mechanism, attacker wallet addresses, fund routing through Railgun and Zcash privacy pools, the 2023 BNB Chain precedent, and the CCTP/LayerZero relaunch plan are all confirmed by multiple Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. Reviewer computed disputed_pct at 6%, which falls in the approve band, but two high-priority coverage gaps push the verdict to revise: the absence of on-chain transaction hashes for independent verification of the specific USDT/USDC figures, and the lack of any identified audit coverage of the Solana deployment post-2023 — a gap directly relevant to the negligence characterization on the page. Additionally, claim_findings[10] identifies a material editorial error: a passage is presented as a verbatim quote from the Allbridge Medium postmortem but does not appear in that document; the actual postmortem language differs, and the cited text reads as analyst paraphrase. claim_findings[7] notes a secondary discrepancy between the page's $573K 2023 loss figure and the official postmortem's $650K figure, with secondary sources partially bridging the gap. These issues do not undermine the investigation's core findings but require correction before the page can be approved.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}