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.
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457612508
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T10:58:09.535Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T10:58:25.860Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7KfwL4uRXZ6jbc9bSWNCmsz8iN6YiEUaBQsWKwcrBbFK
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2384 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"1d677b55c118248ce6d2ebdb2bdef838","decided_at":"2026-10-16T10:58:09.328Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2632,"findings_hash":"F8cdYyfaWDJqokTqxYrMwdMGJz1SZduaY82qipkUHAp2","investigation_id":"5502f2b2-6209-4f96-9683-1ddd6fb3c973","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"afe4eba75a49b631ca800099d043a71e65faa50acd047b4356879d3fc4160b98","page_slug":"sector-drainer-daas-wallet-drainer-with-phantom-0-day-bypass","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is substantially well-sourced and unusually well-hedged for a threat-intelligence page about an unverified criminal marketing claim: it repeatedly and correctly flags the $4M profit figure, the 0-day bypass, the 95%+ conversion rate, and the affiliate counts as unverified operator self-reporting. Independent verification confirmed the great majority of checkable factual claims — the Dark Web Informer and Brinztech reporting dates, the Phantom Lighthouse/OtterSec/Solana Foundation details, the SentinelOne and Scam Sniffer statistics, the Blockaid X-account figures, and the Europol/AudiA6 law-enforcement dates all matched their cited sources closely, including a timeline entry (the DWI 'last modified' date) that could only be confirmed via the live page's structured metadata. Two clear errors were found: the page misdates a Phantom wallet-safety dispute as occurring in '2026' when the dispute itself was public in January 2025 (only the cited article's update timestamp is 2026), and it states no minimum deposit was listed for affiliate entry when its own cited source explicitly says a minimum deposit of around $1,000 was advertised — a direct self-contradiction within the page's sourcing. A specific figure for Quark Drainer (480+ wallets) appears in none of the section's five cited sources and conflicts with the only similar listing this reviewer could locate (440+). The page's largest substantive gap, which it does not fully own, is the complete absence of on-chain forensics or direct validation attempts with named security firms — everything about Sector Drainer's actual capability and profitability remains sourced to the operator's own advertisement or to secondary write-ups of that same advertisement.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}