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 · Harmony ONE (August 2026 Layer-1 mint exploit)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 16 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562471
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:43:07.990Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4vvwQuwpZYzwQkbuHY65MefiTVhYjxNr6WMBp2jUN5Ry
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1530 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"24a3aeaf096ec84b9a55402e0faa72d3","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:43:07.729Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2105,"investigation_id":"a56e663a-d007-4dbb-ba10-07e27f706ebd","new_score":16,"page_slug":"harmony-one-august-2026-layer-1-mint-exploit","prev_score":28,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 12 of 18 claims and found the page's core narrative (unauthorized minting of roughly 4 billion ONE via a consensus flaw, ~97% reaching exchanges, emergency patch, and full rollback) well corroborated across independent tier-1 and tier-2 sources. However, at a 17% disputed rate the page has real, uncorrected internal inconsistencies: it repeats a '~4 billion tokens minted' headline while also citing a single wallet moving 2.385 trillion forged ONE without ever reconciling the two figures (claim_findings[6]), and it presents a two-vulnerability technical explanation as uniformly sourced when only one of four cited sources actually supports both vulnerabilities (claim_findings[5]). A high-priority coverage gap flags the same billion-vs-trillion reconciliation issue as needing explicit clarification. These are presentation and precision problems rather than evidence of a fabricated or misleading core allegation, so the page should be revised rather than escalated to investigation status.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}