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 · Vanilla Drainer (DaaS)
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457446020
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T00:59:12.479Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T00:59:25.547Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5tpQbyjLHXVh5XvgVUC7ncmWbxALx3TELL5DPngUzuPw
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2076 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"26dec4b8468da00d01aa1e73576762fe","decided_at":"2026-10-16T00:59:12.288Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1304,"findings_hash":"EsCGvDCBRik3nNjcL9nESQ36B6f3NmQDsFKnNyskew7R","investigation_id":"f2c745b0-36ba-4a14-a44e-aa3d54016ba3","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"123c4f991cbb32ffa9320cedc09f5f8e2c539586d1fc9047a6e0f10ee09402df","page_slug":"vanilla-drainer-daas","prev_score":0,"reason":"The large majority of claims on this page are well supported by the cited reporting: the SEAL Google Ads campaign statistics (losses, URL counts, impersonation percentages, technical evasion mechanics) check out almost exactly against the primary SEAL radar report, and the Darkbit-sourced July-August 2025 theft narrative ($5.27M, $3.09M single incident, fee wallet 0x9d3...E710d, DAI preference) matches the cited CoinTelegraph/FinanceFeeds coverage. Two defects stand out: (1) a fabricated or badly conflated statistic — 'Darkbit linked Vanilla Drainer to an additional $2.19 million in losses, representing over 30% of all phishing losses' for July 2025 — appears in both a section and the timeline, but the cited FinanceFeeds source instead reports $7.09M in total July phishing losses and a single $1.23M theft (~17%, not >30%); this should be corrected in both locations. (2) The 'positions itself as a successor competitor to Inferno Drainer and Angel Drainer' framing overstates what sources actually say (customer migration from Inferno, not self-described succession, and the ~$500M 2024 figure belongs to the wider DaaS industry, not just these two services). The page's own epistemic-humility section (Investigative Confidence) is itself accurate and a good practice, correctly noting single-source dependency on Darkbit. Coverage gaps include the lack of independent on-chain verification and absence of specific indicators of compromise (addresses/domains).","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}