Skip to main content
Sign in
← 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.

Decision
review · Hyperliquid
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#4
Score
28 → 28 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
426514239
Off-chain at
2026-06-14T23:15:45.968Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
4QY7uDVM3tC9aCJYxR47TtWe7upv2pmrovV1nKGQbHCq
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1923 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:15:45.905Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"08752005-1f07-4792-bacf-583564b32b2c","new_score":28,"page_slug":"hyperliquid","prev_score":28,"reason":"Blue-chip calibration review (Prompt A). Verdict: over-penalized. Page content is treated as accurate; the trust_score band is miscalibrated. Hyperliquid is a legitimate, technically sophisticated Layer-1 perpetual futures DEX that is the dominant platform in its category by volume, entirely self-funded, with no evidence of fraud, Ponzi mechanics, or exit scam behavior. The three major incidents driving its WARNING-band score are systematically mis-characterized: (1) the JELLY manipulation ended with HLP earning a $703K net profit, not suffering a $13.5M loss as stated; (2) the HyperVault $3.6M rug pull was perpetrated by an independent third-party protocol that happened to be built on Hyperliquid's chain, not by Hyperliquid itself; (3) the North Korea/Lazarus Group event produced no actual exploit or fund loss — only user-initiated withdrawals based on fear. Legitimate concerns remain: validator centralization (architectural risk being actively addressed, now at 16+ validators), a UK FCA unauthorized-firm warning (May 2026) restricting UK access, and a structural vulnerability demonstrated by the POPCAT and JELLY manipulation attacks showing the HLP vault can be targeted. These concerns place the entity firmly in the CAUTIONARY band (50-69) — legitimate with material caveats — rather than WARNING (20-49), which is reserved for elevated fraud/loss risk or unresolved severe incidents. A score of 62 reflects the real decentralization and security architecture concerns while recognizing the absence of entity-level fraud or unresolved severe loss events.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}