Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Panoptic V1.1
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#5
Score
66 → 66 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
457813200
Off-chain at
2026-10-16T23:02:04.153Z
Anchored at
2026-10-16T23:02:06.390Z
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
9GoHtYazjyoEA7nwQzTUwNM7jXXJtvd2ZEaWbJwn8aUe
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1907 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"20d6103ce55d3f6877649d307c4c778c","decided_at":"2026-10-16T23:02:03.591Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.4091,"findings_hash":"3tqC6q5rLs83ho1TBeixdQzbhXg6hpigfM6JyJNse8rt","investigation_id":"ccd5c96d-c9d5-49cc-b59d-3dab935b8d49","mode":"findings_only","new_score":66,"page_content_hash":"26ef9c6193820842421fc2912c96c33f4b2beb1053b117e0a2e31b534b0ba8d2","page_slug":"panoptic-v11","prev_score":66,"reason":"The page's core narrative — the August 2025 XOR-fingerprinting position-spoofing vulnerability, its disclosure, the whitehat rescue timeline, the $250,000 bounty, and the funding history — is well supported by Panoptic's own post-mortem and independent reporting (The Block, Code4rena, DeFiLlama), and several specific technical and financial details (block number, exact rescue timestamp, audit dates, warden names, severity counts) check out precisely against primary sources. However, the page contains a clearly fabricated or unsupported claim that ZachXBT flagged the incident (repeated in both the summary and Risk Assessment, with no citation and no corroborating source found anywhere), a factually wrong SemiFungiblePositionManager contract address that resolves on Etherscan to an unrelated TitanX contract, a one-day timeline error in the arXiv whitepaper publication date, and a timeline/prose entry that misdates the $1.6M-at-risk figure by a day. The V2 audit count is also slightly stale (three audits cited vs. four now on record). None of these affect the overall thrust of the entry (that V1.1 suffered a serious but successfully contained vulnerability), but the SFPM address and ZachXBT claims are the kind of specific, checkable factual errors that should be corrected before publication.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}