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.

Decision
review · Sturdy V1
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
42 → 42 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443508520
Off-chain at
2026-08-18T20:31:17.747Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
2TwDViSRps6STEF21feyXBLnkjbvXRu4NnbFQLBBz3Hb
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1156 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-18T20:31:17.666Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":42,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":42,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a June 12, 2023 read-only reentrancy exploit draining ~442 ETH (~$800K) via a Balancer oracle manipulation, laundered through Tornado Cash, followed by a $100K bounty offer and a V2 relaunch — is well corroborated by contemporaneous, independent reporting (Cointelegraph, The Block, rekt.news, CertiK, BlockSec/PeckShield). The CertiK audit-scope-exclusion detail is directly confirmed by CertiK's own retrospective and is a fair, exculpatory-relevant fact the page correctly includes. The one claim the reviewer could not substantiate at all is the ZachXBT attribution in the summary, which has no traceable source and should be re-sourced or removed. A few timeline dates (exact Fantom/Ethereum launch days, V2 announcement date) are plausible but unconfirmed rather than disputed.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}