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_revise · Voltage Finance
- Sequence
- #7
- Score
- 20 → 15 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424135766
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T00:32:19.205Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 53tnHJifUzW4PMF2LGUhqZMwsfzAPRsrjKX2VHesZ5Gn
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1405 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T00:32:18.937Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"a0f97084-611a-43c6-bef3-3b6e998f63a6","new_score":15,"page_slug":"voltage-finance","prev_score":20,"reason":"The review confirmed all major findings — both exploits, their amounts, mechanisms, and timelines — against Tier 1 primary post-mortem documents and independent news reporting, with zero disputed claims. The reviewer's 12.5% partially-supported rate reflects five peripheral issues: a one-month imprecision in the DAO spinout date (claim_findings[5]), a minor address-labeling nuance for the 2022 attacker EOA (claim_findings[8]), slightly understated combined losses for the Hundred/Agave contextual comparison ($11M stated vs. $11.7M confirmed, claim_findings[10]), and imprecise language around the Fuse Foundation incubation narrative (claim_findings[4]). Three claims are unverifiable due to inaccessible historical snapshots rather than any contradiction. The high-priority coverage gap on on-chain tracing of 2022 exploit proceeds represents an expansion opportunity, not a factual correction. No link rot was detected. A light revision to correct the date, address label, and loss figure is warranted; the core investigative record is sound.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":7,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}