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_approve · Agave & Hundred Finance Exploit
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
12 → 12 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
425199940
Off-chain at
2026-06-08T22:20:13.596Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
7rRSXX2DWHW4rTMdRNawBS1iYMkM69HoGn4Bkz6nm8MU
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1217 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-08T22:20:13.397Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"b32973c0-d789-4a2a-a464-7b8096e497c6","new_score":12,"page_slug":"agave-hundred-finance","prev_score":12,"reason":"The review confirmed 14 of 22 claims outright, with 4 partially supported, 1 unverifiable, and 1 disputed — yielding a disputed_pct of 9%, just inside the approval band. All core allegations (exploit dates, loss amounts, attack mechanism, Tornado Cash laundering, protocol shutdowns) are confirmed by multiple independent sources including Tier 1 outlets. The single disputed finding (claim_findings[20] / timeline[7]) is a date error in an aftermath timeline entry — the page states April 1, 2024 for fund movement, while the cited DLNews source confirms May 1, 2024 — a factual error but one peripheral to the investigation's core substance. A high-priority coverage gap exists around pre-exploit audit history, which the page should address in a future revision. With reviewer confidence at 0.82 and no disputed core allegations, approval is warranted.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}