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 · Lucifer Drainer
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423946105
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-03T03:33:59.636Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6YsRZr5w783MdbtJUr3WiPpteHUTMv4Y51QrGrqpmdDq
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1205 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-03T03:33:59.454Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"1047fc76-44c3-4bf2-a9d6-13e118fe2c6a","new_score":0,"page_slug":"lucifer-drainer","prev_score":0,"reason":"The Lucifer Drainer page is well-sourced for a DaaS investigation, with its core operational claims (commission model, version 6.6.6 features, infrastructure takedowns and responses) confirmed by the primary Bleeping Computer/Flare source and industry-wide statistics confirmed by BlockSec, Check Point, and Scam Sniffer. The main accuracy concern is the $250M Inferno Drainer figure, which is an operator self-report presented without that caveat. Three cited URLs (CoinTelegraph phishing losses article, DEXTools Permit2 article, SEAL drainers report) returned 403 or connection errors during verification, though the underlying claims for two of them are corroborated elsewhere. The page's Lucifer-specific claims depend almost entirely on a single source, and the absence of any on-chain or victim-loss data specific to Lucifer itself is a notable gap.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}