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_approve · Loopscale
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 38 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423162031
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-30T13:03:59.263Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BtKpWavtohJns3Y3hcP1ZziZB3pxDsevqfwQ9g4vALB
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1283 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-05-30T13:03:59.091Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"baaab0fc-d2b6-4bba-966e-df154087f643","new_score":38,"page_slug":"loopscale","prev_score":38,"reason":"The review found 11 of 15 claims fully confirmed and 0 disputed, placing the disputed percentage at 6.7% — within the approval band. The three partially-supported findings are minor in scope: claim_findings[1] and claim_findings[6] flag that Jump Capital co-led the seed round but is omitted from the summary backer list, and claim_findings[3] notes reasonable ambiguity about whether the OShield audit inadequately remediated the attack vector versus missing a related but distinct flaw. The one unverifiable claim (claim_findings[14], May 1 operations resumption date) raises a plausible date discrepancy based on the embedded tweet ID, but this does not affect the core factual record of the exploit, recovery, and zero user losses. No link rot, no stale sources, and no high-priority coverage gaps were identified. The page accurately represents the Loopscale exploit incident and recovery with strong multi-source corroboration.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}