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_approve · Hyperliquid
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 28 → 62 (+34)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514241
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:15:46.031Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HrRa2Y2LdGEQkMqPJ6WcAouPGKpgLCQ1Aka8yvACVt2X
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1474 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:15:45.905Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"08752005-1f07-4792-bacf-583564b32b2c","new_score":62,"page_slug":"hyperliquid","prev_score":28,"reason":"The calibration review (confidence 0.85) finds Hyperliquid's current WARNING-band score of 28 is systematically over-penalized across three major incidents. claim_findings[0] shows the JELLY event resulted in a net HLP profit of $703K, not the $13.5M loss stated on the page and in the timeline. claim_findings[1] establishes that the $3.6M HyperVault rug pull was perpetrated by an independent third-party protocol, not by Hyperliquid itself. claim_findings[2] confirms no exploit occurred in the Lazarus Group incident — the $256M figure represents user-initiated withdrawals, not stolen funds, as Hyperliquid itself stated publicly. Legitimate concerns remain: validator centralization (now 16+ validators, actively improving), a UK FCA unauthorized-firm warning (May 2026), and demonstrated HLP vault vulnerability to coordinated market manipulation. These concerns fit the CAUTIONARY band (50-69). A delta of +34 moves the score to 62, consistent with the reviewer's recommendation and with the entity's profile as a dominant, self-funded, technically sophisticated DEX with real but non-fraudulent structural risks.","score_delta":34,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}