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
- #4
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 451894744
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-30T07:16:39.634Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- H9kgem8jUuvgSYEEUCjqL7eRzty72BDLoeSR4cN8tA5E
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2010 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"aec3ce6dd196847ab0a682bf3af843e1","decided_at":"2026-09-30T07:16:39.383Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.125,"findings_hash":"8sReTxzSBU55CJBt1hTr9p1eXhVHj96eXhHhNy3gjqcF","investigation_id":"97a77c60-00a0-4afa-8175-eea7bf52050f","mode":"findings_only","new_score":62,"page_content_hash":"1432b83d67ceee12614c578fbf716da90e9d6fcb49af22ffd09128d5ba5c1b03","page_slug":"neutrl-dns-hijack-march-2026","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page is well-sourced and, on the specific factual claims tested, largely accurate: the March 19, 2026 date, $170M TVL, the DNS social-engineering vector, the malicious contract addresses, the March 21 migration and fund-safety claims, the custodial/OTC settlement description, the Cryip 'non-financial' classification, the HypurrFi and CoW Swap comparison facts, the CIP-86 timeline entry, and the protocol-background section (seed round, investors, launch, CEO bio, AUM target) all check out against independent sources. The one clear defect is a quantitative overstatement, repeated in both the summary and the cluster section, that frames the DNS hijack cluster as spanning 'six weeks' when the page's own named boundary events (March 19 to April 14) span under four weeks and the cited field report only says 'a few weeks apart' with no six-week figure — a single underlying error appearing twice (defect_group neutrl-cluster-duration). One quoted tweet could not be independently verified and is marked unverifiable rather than disputed. The most significant issue is not a factual error but a coverage gap: the page is silent on Neutrl's August-September 2026 reserve-liquidity crisis and NUSD's subsequent depeg to roughly $0.51, an unrelated but highly material later development that leaves the page's implicit picture of Neutrl's fund-safety architecture stale as of the review date.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}