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 · ETHTrustFund
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464374235
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:16:04.593Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:16:13.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:16:13.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GMqXZLfuBMnNUo4WUm3YTEYbxt1zAssv8AX3xmnmnMRs
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1433 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d0cfcfd71eb43bed99a0ce1b8a3120a3","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:16:04.303Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2143,"investigation_id":"b62e95d9-03c4-4ee8-933d-3880f9a62bfc","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"ethtrustfund","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core account holds: the July 2024 treasury drain of about 607 ETH, the project's abandonment, and the addresses and laundering routes are corroborated by several independent outlets (claim_findings[0], [3], [10]). About 21% of claims (3 of 14) were disputed or could not be verified. The timeline dates the second theft transfer to July 20 when Rekt places it on July 21 (claim_findings[2]). The summary also states a ZachXBT flag as fact with no source found (claim_findings[9]), and the March 14 launch date was not verified (claim_findings[12]). The reviewer also noted a minor unreconciled gap between the 607 ETH total and the 456.9 ETH of reported laundering flows. These are corrections to details, not to the central allegation, so a small penalty and a revision are warranted.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}