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
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 18 → 18 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516219
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:08:36.765Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2Y3i1q54ir6s1zNW74Dm8JdFifvYB5rAjEtELXPgXqBb
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1896 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:08:36.557Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"a9cdc7b5-15a1-4e71-857b-15faed45731b","new_score":18,"page_slug":"coldcard-coinkite-firmware-seed-entropy-exploit-multi-actor-august-2026","prev_score":18,"reason":"This page's factual core holds up. Of 32 claims checked, 28 were confirmed outright, 1 was partially supported, 2 were unverifiable (both reasonably caveated absence-of-evidence or hard-to-reach-source items), and none were disputed. Applying the spec formula correctly to the reviewer's own findings (unverifiable + disputed, excluding the partially-supported item) gives a disputed rate of 6.25%, comfortably inside the approve range. The page passes the tests that matter most for a hardware-wallet story: it correctly frames the exploit as offline key reconstruction from public blockchain data rather than remote compromise of shipped devices (claim_findings[9]), its 'multi-actor' framing is directly sourced to an on-record Galaxy Research statement rather than inferred (claim_findings[16]), it does not import facts from an unrelated incident, and it fully discloses Coinkite's patch versions and 'treat existing seeds as compromised' guidance. The one real defect is an internal inconsistency between the summary's Aug 10 loss figure (2,055 BTC) and the body's Aug 10 figure drawn from Coinkite's own tracking (more than 2,000 BTC) — the 2,055 figure was actually an unconfirmed Aug 4 upper estimate (claim_findings[3]). That is a precision and reconciliation problem on a secondary statistic, not a mischaracterization of the vulnerability, its scope, or the vendor's response, and the reviewer's medium-priority, partially_supported classification for it is proportionate.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}