Skip to main content
Sign in
← 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_approve · EVM Cross-Chain Wallet-Drain Campaign (June 2026)
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
0 → 0 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
426288380
Off-chain at
2026-06-13T22:20:38.338Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
5vtXuueNp9sP5RJ7qqxG28aJY6gmrMpidbbV8Q6YfqaS
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1509 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T22:20:38.117Z","decision":"review_approve","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 reviewer examined 18 claims and found zero disputed. All core allegations — the January 2, 2026 ZachXBT disclosure, the $107,000 loss figure, aggregation address 0xAc2e5153170278e24667a580baEa056ad8Bf9bFB, the Shai-Hulud supply-chain compromise, and the Trust Wallet v2.68 incident — are confirmed by multiple independent sources including Tier 1 outlets (Trust Wallet official blog, The Hacker News, BleepingComputer, Palo Alto Unit42). The five partially-supported findings reflect minor peripheral discrepancies: a wallet count of 2,520 vs. the CEO's later figure of 2,596 (claim_findings[8] and claim_findings[10]), granular per-chain loss figures that appear in only one secondary outlet (claim_findings[6]), and a white-hat infrastructure disruption claim that could not be independently verified (claim_findings[15]). None of these affect the integrity of the core narrative. Two high-priority coverage gaps were identified — on-chain forensic follow-up for the aggregation address and a post-January root-cause update — which indicate the page would benefit from expansion but do not warrant revision or denial.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}