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.
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 4 → 4 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443505852
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-08T03:51:14.020Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FUHzvHCpeoC3gon2KQXK8tMUKYj4cCgYK2ZiQmfHLfos
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1320 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-08T03:51:13.793Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"f5182354-8f85-4c17-893e-eead4d4d56d2","new_score":4,"page_slug":"crypto-dao-bnb-chain-access-control-exploit-july-2026","prev_score":4,"reason":"The page's core technical narrative is supported by its primary source (CryptoTimes, July 29 2026), and the broader-context statistics (SlowMist H1 report, Blockaid H1 report, ATM Token, DLMC Token comparisons) are all individually confirmed. The most material finding is a discrepancy in the headline loss figure: the SlowMist Hacked database — which the page cites as a supporting source — records the actual attacker profit at approximately $52,000, noting the $8.2M figure represents assets in 'related monitored addresses' rather than confirmed stolen proceeds. The $8.2M is not fabricated (the primary source uses it), but the page presents it as settled without acknowledging the contradictory entry in its own cited source. The five unverifiable findings are inherent absence-of-evidence claims that are directionally consistent with the evidence but were not independently checked against audit aggregators or on-chain data.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}