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 · JELLY
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462378899
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-28T06:42:17.423Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-28T06:42:31.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-28T06:42:31.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 13vvyjqMBg3MkcwBKqLxpvdaUnTG4zsjJQJ1eTyrLs1e
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2155 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"94206d1d321df53a4e08000e7f416768","decided_at":"2026-10-28T06:42:17.116Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.0952,"findings_hash":"EWe6A2poACE2QRFiTe7wEqFcnRgQ5P5gAKJi6JFaXdWX","investigation_id":"a8402da3-b8e2-4106-9e39-00f3c9ebd6e6","mode":"findings_only","new_score":62,"omissions":{"material":1,"total":2},"page_content_hash":"837858c7d32957032f6b938b85ba6ec271015fc6bdf3cae1fced099e75cad278","page_slug":"jelly","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's core narrative — the March 26, 2025 self-liquidation attack on Hyperliquid's HLP vault via JELLY perpetuals, the ~$13.5M peak unrealized loss, the emergency validator delisting at $0.0095, the reimbursement at $0.037555, and the resulting decentralization controversy (Hayes, Chen, Galois Capital's 'validator put') — is well-supported by the cited sources and corroborated by independent reporting. Dollar figures for the attack mechanics (wallet amounts, $7.17M deposit, $6.26M withdrawal, $230M vault size) check out closely against Arkham Intelligence's and Halborn's postmortems. Two findings stand out as needing correction: the Token Background section's claim of a '2,800x surge within two and a half hours' is not supported by either cited source (Decrypt reports 1,278%/~13.8x in four hours), and a quote attributing 'mimicking the centralized playbook of FTX' to ZachXBT could not be found anywhere and appears to conflate Gracy Chen's separate FTX framing with ZachXBT's. A claim about four specific CEXs (Binance/OKX/MEXC/Bybit) funding the attacker wallets is only partially supported by the cited source (Binance/OKX are well corroborated; MEXC/Bybit are not). The page's scope ends at April 2025 and omits that Hyperliquid went on to thrive and that JELLYJELLY itself faced renewed concentration/manipulation concerns as recently as early 2026.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}