Skip to main content
Sign in
← 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 · HypurrFi Domain Hijack (April 2026)
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
62 → 62 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
424382935
Off-chain at
2026-06-05T03:54:08.664Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
AfJpWtTp9nbrBZdZQEvuX9VvoP9iBK5jqsN8McQpxeP7
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1120 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-05T03:54:08.329Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"d6f710cc-1241-439e-a06f-cea33478dad8","new_score":62,"page_slug":"hypurrfi-domain-hijack-april-2026","prev_score":62,"reason":"The investigation page is well-sourced and largely accurate. The core incident narrative — April 3 HypurrFi domain hijack via Openprovider social engineering, no funds drained, migration to hypurrfi.com, and the broader March-April 2026 DeFi registrar attack cluster — is confirmed by multiple independent sources. The most significant unverified claim is the approximately $180M peak TVL figure, which no independent source corroborates and appears inconsistent with available data points. Minor issues include a timeline date for CIP-86 passage that reflects article publication date rather than governance vote date, and verbatim team quotes that are plausible but not independently verifiable due to paywalled or authenticated source requirements.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}