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 · Sturdy V1
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 62 → 54 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512774
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T08:06:25.921Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- C1U3DKPyHCSJKwcmdAsdJWxEQNpYuSufm6TLPmGvD7of
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1856 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T08:06:25.731Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":54,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":62,"reason":"Using the spec formula (disputed + unverifiable) / total claims, this page's disputed rate is 2/39 = 5.1%, well within the approve band, and the page's central narrative -- that Sturdy V1 suffered a Balancer read-only reentrancy exploit rather than committed misconduct -- is confirmed across many independent sources, including a verbatim-verified Rekt News quote (claim_findings[13]). However, two adjustments outweigh the low disputed rate. First, claim_findings[7] and claim_findings[27] both dispute the same $4.4M seed-round figure, which the page's own cited source (Extruct AI) and an independent aggregator instead put at $3.9M -- a single underlying sourcing error duplicated in two places, not two independent failures, but one the page should correct since it misstates its own citation. Second, and more substantively, claim_findings[22] flags the page's 'TVL remains modest at ~$290,000' characterization as stale: independently reported activity on Sturdy's Bittensor SN10 subnet (roughly $125-200M in allocated deposits as of 2025) is omitted, making the protocol's current scale look far smaller than reporting suggests. This is echoed by a high-priority, evidence-grounded coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]) rather than a speculative one, so per policy it pushes the verdict toward revise even though the raw disputed percentage is low. None of this undermines the well-supported exploit/response/sunset narrative, so the penalty is kept light and no status change or delisting is warranted.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}