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 · Lucifer DaaS
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443519838
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T09:04:25.996Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- J5c5CkEuPG8WetKx2B8Efg8CVHVETdZqvhv37bWhv6SC
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1377 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T09:04:25.853Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"290c0f45-6d7c-4e0d-9ead-b049aaa7e965","new_score":0,"page_slug":"lucifer-daas","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core factual backbone -- Lucifer DaaS's existence, business model, version history, and platform-resilience behavior -- is well supported by the primary cited BleepingComputer/Flare article and corroborated where independently checked (Scam Sniffer, CertiK, Kroll, ACM/BlockSec figures all verify cleanly). The page is also appropriately cautious about not attributing aggregate industry loss figures to Lucifer specifically and about the absence of operator attribution or enforcement action. However, three claims are disputed: two instances where the page names competitor drainers (Vanilla, Quark, Pink, MS Drainer, CLINKSINK) not found in the sources cited for those passages, and one instance where a specific quote/reason attributed to Inferno Drainer's 2023 shutdown does not match the cited source or independent reporting. Two additional claims involve unsourced superlative or interpretive framing (novelty of the affiliate model, 'first'/'most specific' research framing) beyond what the cited sources state.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}