Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Sequence
#3
Score
40 (-10)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443505857
Off-chain at
2026-08-08T03:51:14.201Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
HfyrWGQnWsxw3yzKyfCrXghqhTPHEg3n7GG1TSJFQEzg
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1510 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-08T03:51:13.793Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f5182354-8f85-4c17-893e-eead4d4d56d2","new_score":0,"page_slug":"crypto-dao-bnb-chain-access-control-exploit-july-2026","prev_score":4,"reason":"The page's core technical narrative is well-supported: the exploit date, blockchain, root cause (missing access-control modifier), attacker wallet, Blockaid detection, and team silence are all confirmed by Tier 1–2 sources. However, the headline loss figure of $8.2 million is materially contested by one of the page's own cited sources — the SlowMist Hacked database records actual attacker profit at approximately $52,000, noting the $8.2M represents assets in related monitored addresses rather than confirmed stolen proceeds (claim_findings[1] and claim_findings[21]). This discrepancy is a factor of roughly 157x and involves the single most prominent claim on the page. The five unverifiable findings (claim_findings[10], [11], [18], [20]) are inherent absence-of-evidence claims consistent with the source record but not independently cross-checked. The page should be revised to acknowledge the $8.2M vs. $52K discrepancy and clarify whether the figure represents vault exposure or confirmed attacker profit; on-chain BscScan verification would close the high-priority coverage gap identified by the reviewer.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}