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.
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 8 → 8 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443511045
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T03:21:17.819Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FSa2h5ZugcMhgYTbXmvVUZftfwF8EpbPfZ1s5Ygoi7aX
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1491 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:21:17.616Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"7be2e44e-2114-4940-85f3-54a8b6b1cd26","new_score":8,"page_slug":"allbridge-core-cctp-base-chain-exploit-august-2026","prev_score":8,"reason":"The page's factual core is well supported: the August 2026 CCTP exploit narrative, sourced primarily to a single research blog (Defimon), is independently corroborated in its key figures and mechanism by a second security firm's analysis (SlowMist) that the page does not cite, and the July 2026 Solana exploit and April 2023 BNB Chain exploit are both extensively corroborated across multiple independent outlets. A small number of claims show minor numerical imprecision (the 2023 loss range's $650,000 upper bound, the '39-month' framing, a '30 minutes' vs. '25 minutes' response time) or overstate a cited source's actual position (the L2BEAT contract-verification characterization and the Asymmetric Research CCTP-precedent framing), and one interpretive sentence about LP risk during 'successive investigation periods' is too vague to verify. No claim was found to be disputed by a more credible contradicting source, and no cited URL exhibited genuine link rot (several publisher fetches were blocked by rate-limiting rather than dead links, and were corroborated via alternate sources per protocol).","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}