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 · Agave & Hundred Finance Exploit
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 12 → 12 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425199936
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-08T22:20:13.498Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- SgaS2148JZCgw4ErpJwSUmuRwi27DFnbVU2LSYJc9VM
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1022 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-08T22:20:13.397Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"b32973c0-d789-4a2a-a464-7b8096e497c6","new_score":12,"page_slug":"agave-hundred-finance","prev_score":12,"reason":"The investigation page is substantially accurate. Core facts — exploit dates, loss amounts, technical mechanism, protocol shutdown, and fund movement — are confirmed by multiple credible independent sources. The one factual error is the timeline entry for fund movement (April 1, 2024 vs. the confirmed May 1, 2024 per DLNews). The immunebytes.com source returned a 404. The claim that 'security researchers cited CREAM Finance as precedent' is factually plausible but unsupported by the specific sources cited on the page. The DAI figure has a minor 1,000-unit discrepancy (843,788 vs. 842,788) and the page omits the 865,143 sUSD stolen in the April 2023 exploit.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}