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 · LayerZero Protocol
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 52 → 42 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425415282
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T22:07:54.475Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BJzCSjXH5Pncyn2N9d3HR1zH7kmhnUPMB3KguUjEEATm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1380 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T22:07:54.220Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"ae4c060a-cd45-41d5-8a93-fd8e8e6ac8d9","new_score":42,"page_slug":"layerzero-protocol","prev_score":52,"reason":"The reviewer found 2 disputed claims out of 28, placing disputed_pct at 10.7% and triggering a revision. The most significant error is in the funding section: claim_findings[29] describes the April 2025 $55 million transaction as a 'Series B' round involving Andreessen Horowitz, Circle, OKX, Sequoia Capital, and OpenSea, when Tier 1 sources (CoinDesk, LayerZero's own post) confirm it was a token purchase by a16z alone with no other disclosed participants and no equity component. Additionally, claim_findings[26] states a Blockaid GitHub Gist identified Dinari and Skale as 1-of-1 risk pathways, but direct inspection of the Gist confirms it is a generic audit script that names neither protocol. The core KelpDAO exploit narrative, attribution, remediation, and client exodus reporting are all well-sourced and confirmed across multiple Tier 1 sources. A high-priority coverage gap — whether KelpDAO users received any restitution — is material to readers evaluating this entity and should be addressed in revision.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}