Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Bonzo Finance
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
2818 (-10)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443517577
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T22:27:53.827Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
4PYMjPBjJmkb25BRCfMyppV2fz8h131AiBxgENj4cZ87
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1401 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:27:53.506Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"eb7d60ce-600d-4768-9ba4-a4f9e2120583","new_score":18,"page_slug":"bonzo-finance","prev_score":28,"reason":"The fact-check confirmed the page's core account of the July 11, 2026 Bonzo Lend exploit -- the oracle attack mechanics, dollar figures, TVL impact, and the conclusion that fault lay with a flaw in Supra's oracle verifier rather than Bonzo's own contracts -- against the official incident report, Rekt News, and independent coverage. Two secondary claims were disputed: the page states Bonzo's pre-launch Halborn audit found no critical vulnerabilities, when the audit report actually documents four critical findings that were remediated before launch, and the page's fund-movement section attributes an Ethereum address to a white-hat responder wallet that outside reporting instead ties to the primary attacker's laundering trail. A third claim, that the attacker's funds remain unrecovered, could not be independently confirmed from the cited source. With 3 of 18 checked claims disputed or unverifiable (about 17%) and no problems in the central narrative, the page is sent back for two targeted corrections rather than a structural rewrite.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}