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
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426288377
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T22:20:38.253Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- F6uwf86qDn5RhRqMPw56iJrXmMxjqAc7TCdLQ7t7htQF
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1248 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-13T22:20:38.117Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"be71032d-f1c5-4c90-b3b8-dbe91cc05339","new_score":0,"page_slug":"evm-cross-chain-wallet-drain-campaign-june-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is well-sourced and factually accurate in its core claims. The primary figures — $107,000 total losses, aggregation address 0xAc2e5153170278e24667a580baEa056ad8Bf9bFB, January 2, 2026 disclosure, the December 2025 Trust Wallet v2.68/Shai-Hulud supply chain compromise — are confirmed by multiple independent outlets. The five 'partially supported' findings reflect minor discrepancies: the affected-wallet count for the Trust Wallet incident (2,520 vs. CEO's later 2,596 figure), granular per-chain loss figures for smaller chains that appear in a single source, and a 'white-hat disruption' claim that could not be independently verified. No claims were found to be factually disputed or fabricated. The main structural weakness is that the page presents a snapshot from January 2, 2026 with no subsequent on-chain forensic updates or root-cause resolution.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}