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 · Compounder Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464293362
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:27:13.722Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:27:19.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:27:19.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- F817XRG6r6pvmbUr9EHgAjbAb7ykVYRgSmP4ByoE3ymL
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1474 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d62931ecffe374d30a74288065223821","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:27:13.465Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3077,"investigation_id":"312d7168-4587-4013-b950-2b2717d3aa4a","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"compounder-finance","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core account holds: the amount stolen, the Dec 1, 2020 rug pull date, the exploit address and token drop, the audit and the unmonitored timelock were confirmed against CoinDesk and Decrypt (claim_findings[0], [3], [7], [8]). Counting disputed and unverifiable findings gives 4 of 13 (about 31%), just over the 30% line. Two of those four, claim_findings[9] and [10], are the same defect (the unsupported claim that Solidity Finance committed to better future disclosures), so counting it once gives about 25%. The remaining issues are the launch date conflicting with CoinDesk (claim_findings[1], [2]), the unsourced Tornado.cash routing (claim_findings[6]) and timeline entries with no sources. The page is rated at the top of the minor band, and the unsupported Solidity commitment and launch date should be corrected.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}