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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 14 → 14 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465098740
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-04T00:22:48.871Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-04T00:22:59.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-04T00:22:59.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7LSbrV5ksV9SAeMzNRAt2gUxY4ZQndrDLoMb6rhjJ3iz
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1448 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"8ac64171e13b08680bdfb1291d7d4851","decided_at":"2026-11-04T00:22:48.805Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1429,"findings_hash":"BwEHKhWXZzcRfGsbC1YmBDA1uBqDeW5yDPRXyzzvDszt","investigation_id":"fcf8176f-b437-467b-93a2-5c44585b6162","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":14,"omissions":{"material":1,"total":1},"page_content_hash":"b35785c7f1de398a27f2f457ed10a3d64411d591e3aef46d0ea517c70378ef7c","page_slug":"terence-kwok-humanity-protocol-staged-hack","prev_score":14,"reason":"The core incident narrative (private-key compromise, 80-90% H crash, June 5 phishing, Quantstamp DPRK-consistent attribution, ZachXBT staged allegation, recovery plan) is supported by the sources I checked. Weak points are a Kwok quotation not found verbatim, a Hancom certificate detail not in the Crypto Briefing article, and token-mint figures that early reports put lower. The page omits July 2026 developments including the enterprise-AI pivot. Only a handful of claims were checked, mostly the exploit and Quantstamp sections; no claims were found to be wrong.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}