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 · Eleven Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 59 → 59 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464448702
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:41:36.951Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:41:49.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:41:49.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- oq4vmmuCoiEDQF6ibFyqaj9XsL1D8HAC7mHHKTBaXq7
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1433 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"9bf0d1eba14623b648e12162da08b88b","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:41:36.711Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"f0fb353d-7225-4009-b497-c32fcb3f7b2d","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":59,"page_slug":"eleven-finance","prev_score":59,"reason":"Of five claims reviewed, one (claim_findings[3], the recovery plan figures) could not be checked because the source blocked the reviewer, so it is left out of the percentage. Of the remaining four, one is unverifiable (claim_findings[4], the statement that the website remains accessible, which a single aggregator contradicts), giving a disputed share of 25%. Two further claims are only partly supported: the $4.8M upper loss figure (claim_findings[0]) and the attacker address 0x8b29, which appears to be an attack contract rather than the primary address (claim_findings[1]). The core exploit narrative is broadly supported, the one omission is minor, and reviewer confidence is low (0.4), so the penalty is kept at the mild end of the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":4,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}