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 · Superior Browser Extension Campaign — Wallet Drainer
- Sequence
- #8
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464923603
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T13:56:29.959Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T13:56:39.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T13:56:39.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BHtuJizoyuhvqtF1tbkMDMmAeAsBktawYKMXfx5cuRx2
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1439 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"58a21fd547f8a340303e3de58885f22f","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T13:56:29.685Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"5b4fd7aa-6d72-461c-85a1-2f6ba4c78a25","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":0,"page_slug":"superior-browser-extension-campaign-wallet-drainer","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 8 claims checked, 6 matched Socket's report, including the core allegations (19 extensions, about 80,000 users, 16 modules, publication date, Chrome removal). One detail is disputed: claim_findings[3] says Socket described 21 primary C2 domains, but the reviewer counted 20 (from a summarized fetch, so a recount is advised). claim_findings[7], the DomainTools newsletter date, could not be verified. That gives 25% disputed or unverifiable, which falls in the minor band. The disputed item is a peripheral count rather than a core allegation, so the penalty is at the light end. No omissions were found, and the page already flags that the current status of the other extensions is unknown.","replaces_fact_checks":{"score_before_fact_checks":2,"undone":1},"reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":8,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}