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 · Socket Protocol
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 58 → 58 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425210649
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-08T23:31:35.368Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2u9YX1YUV7MrkaAC7yDygrSyKdQh1qSWa5q1sLHtNuA8
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1247 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-08T23:31:35.157Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"ab00ba7b-7a03-47da-bf5e-acf5a07d2621","new_score":58,"page_slug":"socket-protocol","prev_score":58,"reason":"The review confirms 17 of 23 claims outright, with 3 partially supported and a disputed_pct of 8.7%, well within the approval threshold. The sole disputed claim (claim_findings[21]) concerns the Arbitrum grant denomination — the page states $800K while Arbitrum Foundation records show 1,000,000 ARB, a peripheral funding detail rather than a core allegation. The unverifiable claim (claim_findings[1]) attributes both founders to prior Biconomy work, but consulted sources consistently link Vaibhav Chellani to Matic Network instead; this background detail is not central to the exploit narrative. One dead CoinTelegraph URL (claim_findings[12]) should be replaced. The exploit mechanism, timeline, fund recovery, and user compensation — the page's primary subject matter — are confirmed across multiple independent Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. No high-priority coverage gaps were identified.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}