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 · Balancer
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 32 → 32 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426276051
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T20:59:00.502Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8enS2oHxwQJ9R7b19zoSwZuWTLxf9JqNoL7k1gZ5N5uC
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1114 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-13T20:59:00.386Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"36f75834-67ae-4c11-b2be-78c9066f6778","new_score":32,"page_slug":"balancer","prev_score":32,"reason":"The Balancer investigation page is factually sound on all major claims, with no disputed or fabricated assertions found. The primary issues are minor imprecision: the BAL token allocation figure of '65 million to liquidity providers' omits 10M in ecosystem/fundraising funds; the '$2.8M at risk' figure at August 22 disclosure conflates a later status update; the specific loss amount for the September 2023 DNS attack varies across sources ($238K-$253K range); and the $2.1M August 2023 exploit figure comes from PeckShield analysis rather than consensus. The most significant structural gap is that all nine page sections have empty content fields — the investigation consists only of a summary and timeline with no written section analysis, though sources are listed.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}