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 · Wintermute
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 64 → 64 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464344063
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T03:28:12.119Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T03:28:21.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T03:28:21.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- NeW4U9oLTVwjVSHBv97H8kUqXGQRM8nmqrZ2N3GHYkb
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1394 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"201b5c6c246aa69e63deaef8ee29e4ee","decided_at":"2026-11-02T03:28:12.055Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.25,"findings_hash":"FycPyDcYpuhyLfhnP8XNFwmsc1CUD1f3WBX7ERkFWYWR","investigation_id":"c0832d18-9663-491d-8289-727146536eaf","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":64,"omissions":{"material":0,"total":2},"page_content_hash":"6ae4d5e8a6c235413afee999abce2e64d26fc58739b0a144565a5eb2c49324e7","page_slug":"wintermute","prev_score":64,"reason":"The core narrative of the Profanity key compromise, the retained admin permission, the ~$160M loss and the TrueFi repayment is supported by sources I read. Two defects: the TrueFi loan principal is inconsistent across sources ($96M vs $92M), and the SEC citation points to the October follow-up letter rather than the September 3 submission the timeline describes. Coverage was a sample, not exhaustive; several on-chain figures and the OTC growth claim were not checked. The subject is still operating, with no contradiction from current status.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}