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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 4 → 4 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443522771
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T02:06:26.086Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5KerYopbSpHrKwBLCN4X9V194bQLX2TmLWGAh9KCqS4H
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1473 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T02:06:25.871Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"f7e8927f-c246-405f-843b-763fbb6ec79e","new_score":4,"page_slug":"balance-coin-blc-oracle-manipulation-42dao","prev_score":4,"reason":"The page's core factual claims -- the July 22, 2026 date, the $912K-$915K loss range, the Spotter/GemJoin/Dog oracle-manipulation mechanism, the two-stage replay attack, the CertiK audit history, and the absence of any 42DAO statement or recovery plan through late July 2026 -- are all independently corroborated by multiple tier-1 and tier-2 sources beyond the page's own citations. The page's characterization of 42DAO as the victim/operator (not attacker) and its hedged, unresolved treatment of the rug-pull-versus-exploit question both match contemporaneous reporting. The most notable issues found are a mismatched archive_url pointing to an unrelated article, a small set of analytical claims (OSM/TWAP framing, exact post-crash market cap) that go slightly beyond what cited sources state verbatim, and a cross-page inconsistency where a related, previously-approved bridge-hack-cluster page attributes Balance's failure to 'off-chain key management and administrative access controls' when independent sourcing (including this page's own) attributes it to an oracle/logic-validation flaw.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}