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 · Lucifer DaaS
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457443793
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T00:50:56.767Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T00:51:20.046Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4DuzpfV16CSvYGXJooeyG49vjjCyk7RszxmgDcdX1Zd8
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2213 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"5574f5fee1eb967d6e23d9e799ffb395","decided_at":"2026-10-16T00:50:56.564Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1,"findings_hash":"GgQWaLE2rWhfKVh8wjnyPTUkmYfBBJje7PhzoHFNc2PS","investigation_id":"290c0f45-6d7c-4e0d-9ead-b049aaa7e965","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"bfea18b8051c60710bab8ee8b08ad0a961cffa71e4d78655e15e120bfa9e21b2","page_slug":"lucifer-daas","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is substantially accurate and notably well-hedged: it explicitly flags where attribution to Lucifer specifically is unsupported (loss totals, on-chain indicators, operator identity) rather than inflating the entity's apparent scale, which is good practice for an entity defined almost entirely by one piece of sponsored threat-intel reporting. Core operational facts (version 6.6.6, the 20% commission model, the August 2025 Telegram ban, the November 2025 Firebase-to-IPFS migration, and the May 2026 BleepingComputer publication) all check out against the cited BleepingComputer/Flare article. The broader ecosystem loss figures (Scam Sniffer 2023/2024/2025, CertiK 2025) are independently confirmed and correctly distinguished by methodology. Two issues stood out: first, the claim that Inferno Drainer's 2023 shutdown was announced 'citing too much attention' is not supported by the cited Check Point source, which instead frames that shutdown announcement as a deliberate diversionary tactic — this should be corrected. Second, two places list named competitor drainers (Vanilla, Quark, Pink, MS Drainer) that do not actually appear in either source cited for those sentences, even though most of those operations are real and documented elsewhere; the citation itself is the problem, not necessarily the underlying fact. A specific sourcing claim attributing a $1.93B H1-2025 total-theft figure to 'Kroll' could not be independently confirmed. The investigation is almost entirely dependent on a single primary source for Lucifer-specific detail, which is an appropriate but important caveat for readers.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}