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_revise · The Sandbox (SAND OFT Exploit)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 34 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562176
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:41:27.329Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HuzVpBgFWTwwiw9SmMSW79FjsFqtTCXNXctt9VxqSn7z
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2936 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"397c58df0640a384cc898b3e26bc1205","band_override":{"actual_delta":-8,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"No claim on this page was found to be disputed or false (disputed_pct = 0%), and the reviewer confirms the central narrative -- an approveAndCall/LayerZero-delegate configuration exploit that minted a huge nominal figure but extracted only a small real amount -- is well corroborated, including by The Sandbox's own post-mortem. However, 6 of the page's 10 claim findings were only 'partially_supported' because the page states precise figures (329.24 trillion minted, $675,000 drained, exact containment and deposit-halt timestamps) as settled fact when the official post-mortem and other independent outlets report materially different numbers (claim_findings[0], [2], [6], [8], [10]) without the page acknowledging the discrepancy. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority coverage gap: the page relies entirely on secondary press coverage with no direct on-chain citation, which would resolve exactly these figure conflicts (coverage_gaps[0]). Given these editorial gaps plus the reviewer's moderate confidence (0.72), a light revision -- adding source reconciliation language and on-chain citations -- is warranted rather than approval or denial."},"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:41:27.088Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"af1341f6-f129-46eb-9226-bfa047c8932a","new_score":34,"page_slug":"the-sandbox-sand-oft-exploit","prev_score":42,"reason":"No claim on this page was found to be disputed or false (disputed_pct = 0%), and the reviewer confirms the central narrative -- an approveAndCall/LayerZero-delegate configuration exploit that minted a huge nominal figure but extracted only a small real amount -- is well corroborated, including by The Sandbox's own post-mortem. However, 6 of the page's 10 claim findings were only 'partially_supported' because the page states precise figures (329.24 trillion minted, $675,000 drained, exact containment and deposit-halt timestamps) as settled fact when the official post-mortem and other independent outlets report materially different numbers (claim_findings[0], [2], [6], [8], [10]) without the page acknowledging the discrepancy. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority coverage gap: the page relies entirely on secondary press coverage with no direct on-chain citation, which would resolve exactly these figure conflicts (coverage_gaps[0]). Given these editorial gaps plus the reviewer's moderate confidence (0.72), a light revision -- adding source reconciliation language and on-chain citations -- is warranted rather than approval or denial.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}