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 · Bitrefill
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 52 → 52 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425437478
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-10T00:34:16.952Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GBJkYuMK3xTKY3qU9f6ZEpcePQ6f6qYPmLEf6SLRtsPK
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1548 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-10T00:34:16.729Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"8038ecc2-39f1-4530-bfdf-f87bf4b49de2","new_score":52,"page_slug":"bitrefill","prev_score":52,"reason":"The reviewer examined 27 claims and found zero disputed. All core allegations — the March 1, 2026 attack date, Lazarus/Bluenoroff attribution, attack vector (legacy credential on compromised employee laptop), 18,500 records exposed, data types affected, hot wallet draining, and company commitment to cover losses — are confirmed by multiple Tier-1 sources including CoinDesk, BleepingComputer, and The Record. The five partially-supported findings involve minor imprecision: a dollar-figure variance on the Ronin hack (claim_findings[18]), a 'since 2022' qualifier that overstates DPRK aggregate theft scope (claim_findings[21]), a single-source March 5 restoration date (claim_findings[12]), Draper Associates investor attribution absent from the primary cited source (claim_findings[22]), and an initial announcement framed as 'technical issues' rather than a formal breach disclosure (claim_findings[27]). None affect the page's core factual record. The one unverifiable claim (claim_findings[17], Cyble blog returning 403) is supplementary context only and not load-bearing. Reviewer confidence of 0.87 and the absence of any high-priority coverage gaps support approval without score penalty.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}