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 · Gondi V3
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 52 → 52 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425562428
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-10T14:19:19.994Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GZnDe2ixH54D11fd3EM42EkY3BUXStPNJJBKYbw96Y9w
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1185 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-10T14:19:19.631Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"d3bfd6f1-187e-4fa1-9d62-4dd56f370ab5","new_score":52,"page_slug":"gondi-v3","prev_score":52,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 15 of 19 claims outright and found zero disputed claims, placing disputed_pct at 0.0%. The three partially-supported findings (claim_findings[1], claim_findings[4], claim_findings[5]) concern secondary-source precision — the summary omitting Foundation Capital as co-lead (correctly named in the timeline), the widely-cited '78 NFTs' figure which likely reflects double-counted transfer events rather than unique NFTs stolen, and the '~40 transactions' characterization versus primary on-chain evidence of a single transaction. None of these affect the page's core factual assertions about the exploit, its scope, or the team's response. The high-priority coverage gap on on-chain forensics recommends editorial expansion to reconcile figures, not retraction. Reviewer confidence of 0.82 supports a clear approve.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}