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 · Rust Crypto Clipper Malware — Fake GitHub Stars Campaign
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464360181
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T04:25:35.268Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T04:25:59.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T04:25:59.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BK1drNBpmRVDqEo7iz6nCHnnmdpiHfxkcDza6TomJczG
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1396 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"1c9fb880c885d3ca5952f8d9b7aafc04","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T04:25:35.017Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.4167,"investigation_id":"9db43d3a-a8d1-4673-80c0-6669bcbe0419","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"rust-crypto-clipper-malware-fake-github-stars-campaign","prev_score":0,"reason":"Five of twelve checked claims (about 42%) were disputed or could not be verified, which falls in the significant-issues band. The disputes are factual slips rather than challenges to the core allegations: the Check Point publication date is June 17, not June 19 (claim_findings[0], [1]); The Hacker News date is also June 17 (claim_findings[2]); and the 15,500 total was described as Bitcoin addresses when Bitcoin is about 15,000 (claim_findings[3]). The platform non-response claim could not be confirmed (claim_findings[11]), and the core technical and campaign details match Check Point. Because the errors are minor and the reviewer's confidence is moderate, the penalty sits at the low end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}