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 · Voltage Finance
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 32 → 32 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423874225
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-02T19:36:56.816Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2WbCvcuWpSFfF6Mb8fzuT7vZU77xDJZfpAZCVqVNUfSh
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1086 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-02T19:36:56.733Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"a0f97084-611a-43c6-bef3-3b6e998f63a6","new_score":32,"page_slug":"voltage-finance","prev_score":32,"reason":"The Voltage Finance investigation page is substantially accurate. Core factual claims — exploit dates, amounts, attacker mechanics, funding rounds, token metrics, and post-mortem details — are all confirmed by primary sources. The one substantive factual error is the claim that the protocol has no publicly accessible security audits: Voltage Finance's own documentation lists multiple Quillhash/QuillAudits reports. Several claims are partially supported due to source characterization nuances (e.g., Circle contact claim backed by secondary reporting only, not official post-mortems). Coverage gaps exist around the current status of the 2025 exploit investigation and a missing analysis of the SimpleChefStaking-specific audit gap.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}