Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← 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 · Alpha Homora
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
38 → 38 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443562460
Off-chain at
2026-09-02T00:43:05.798Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
9LpijAt8Tnec9ykwKNygNnPgrwajc53m4u47wwZGzhVB
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1131 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"dc715a95af815aa0dd2065b7901a45a2","decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:43:05.699Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.3125,"investigation_id":"4ffdc414-f996-4307-8fb2-c582485a1622","new_score":38,"page_slug":"alpha-homora","prev_score":38,"reason":"The page's central narrative — the February 2021 Alpha Homora V2 exploit, its mechanics, the resulting Iron Bank protocol debt, and the 2023 account-freeze dispute — is well corroborated by multiple independent, live, tier-1/tier-2 sources. However, three specific embellishing details (the post-mortem's alleged 'prime suspect' statement, the precise ETH deployer-address transfer breakdown, and the claim that neither auditor caught any part of the exploited vulnerability) do not hold up against the cited or independently reviewed sources, and two sourcing claims (founder names/roles, peak TVL) rely on now-dead links. The page would benefit from a post-2024 update on the dispute's resolution status.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}