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 · RiskOnBlast
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464375723
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:21:15.466Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:21:31.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:21:31.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3DQVA3ptdxgaZU7g7kj2rcDVXj2FusNTFDbLdfk9jZ1i
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1590 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"728274ddc9f954a1b885acadb10b519e","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:21:15.227Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1818,"investigation_id":"a6524f87-aa19-43ce-821b-8cc026828096","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"riskonblast","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core facts of the rug pull (about 420 ETH taken on Feb 24, 2024, the addresses, the 14:35 UTC withdrawal, the laundering amounts and the 750-wallet figure) were confirmed against CoinDesk and CertiK. Two of 11 claims could not be verified (claim_findings[8] the Andrew Choi alert, claim_findings[9] the top-three 2024 presale ranking), giving about 18% disputed or unverifiable. Five further claims were only partly supported: the page calls the IDO both uncapped and capped and dates its close to Feb 23 against CertiK's timing (claim_findings[1], [2]), and it describes a formal 'Undeniable' rating where the source reports only an X comment (claim_findings[3], [4]). The $20M group total and several per-project loss figures were not confirmed (claim_findings[7]). Timeline entries carry no sources. The penalty is kept at the low end because the reviewer's confidence was moderate and the flawed items are secondary to the core allegation.","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}