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 · dForce Network
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 32 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443526266
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T15:06:07.355Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7HLkokrUh1LGTkmeaBwS122LAEAF79eADv573bggzA6E
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1860 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T15:06:07.000Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"fd4accb8-ef66-4cb4-8098-1c1b4719b81a","new_score":32,"page_slug":"dforce-network","prev_score":42,"reason":"An independent fact-check of 27 claims on this page's dForce entry found zero claims contradicted by a better source. The reviewer's computed disputed_pct of 11.1% (claim_findings: 0 disputed + 3 unverifiable of 27) is driven entirely by source-access limits — blocked Medium links and an unavailable historical 2024 TVL snapshot — not by factual errors. The page's core narrative (the $25M April 2020 Lendf.Me exploit, the $3.65M February 2023 Curve reentrancy exploit, both full fund recoveries, the ConsenSys/Leshner code-copying dispute, and the founders' biographies) is well corroborated by the page's own cited sources per claim_findings[0-4, 6-9, 11-20, 23]. The main defect is currency, not accuracy: the page's 'Post-Exploit Recovery, Relaunch, and Current Operations' section (claim_findings[5], claim_findings[21], coverage_gaps[0], priority high) has not been updated to reflect dForce's November 2023 governance-approved spin-off of its lending product into 'Unitus Finance' or its 2025-2026 public repositioning as a 'DeFAI' network — both drawn from dForce's own governance forum and DefiLlama profile. A secondary, lower-stakes issue is a citation/support mismatch: the claim that Xin Xu was Sparkpool's CEO is independently true but unsupported by any of the three sources cited in that section (claim_findings[22]). Two timeline dates (founding, imBTC integration) also carry generic placeholder-looking day values that don't match the best-available precision (claim_findings[24-25]).","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}