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 · Ionic Money
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 22 → 14 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424313961
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T20:15:38.655Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- An5BgTsiGXQp8zgf5rV6MKXsYrDLhQ3pbUvxckE7e9hV
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1353 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T20:15:38.476Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"fa6b2c66-1851-42d9-8703-41b7133f9517","new_score":14,"page_slug":"ionic-money","prev_score":22,"reason":"The page is substantially accurate: 20 of 27 reviewed claims are confirmed by independent Tier 1 sources and no claim is outright disputed. The reviewer's disputed_pct of 0.11 reflects 4 partially-supported claims and 3 unverifiable ones, not fabrications. The primary tension is the total loss figure: the page states $8.6–8.8M, Halborn agrees, but Rekt News calculates $6.9M net losses and the official postmortem (inaccessible during review) reportedly references $12.3M in gross assets — this methodological ambiguity is not resolved on the page (coverage_gaps[1], priority: high). A minor one-day date discrepancy for the first Midas exploit (claim_findings[15]: page states January 16, Rekt News records January 15) and the unverifiable claim about a 2022 Midas audit carry limited weight. Two high-priority coverage gaps — loss figure reconciliation and current operational status post-exploit — warrant revision rather than approval, but the page's core narrative is well-sourced and reliable.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}