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 · ValueDefi
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 34 → 34 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464273567
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T23:16:10.530Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T23:16:40.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T23:16:40.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4m5aPbc7FjKGNGLeEhSLgopDupwmLS9WbWtt8C2L4p4j
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1360 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"0ffe0eb5809de7c7923b116cf96147ab","decided_at":"2026-11-01T23:16:10.464Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1667,"findings_hash":"D6mqPsEuJsQRPtu3yYL4m8taGW1y7goYNeDKRtft7fuV","investigation_id":"d3f4ed3e-58a3-4164-b8c3-f478058afd5c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":34,"page_content_hash":"b7fb2b383e1e2656fc4d5bdb1d676c82fa074f1f88c93655aed57fe422e66cda","page_slug":"valuedefi","prev_score":34,"reason":"A small sample of core claims was checked: the first-exploit date and price drop, and the second and third exploit dates, amounts and mechanisms. These are supported by CoinDesk and REKT. Problems found: the '$8.5 million' attribution to BASv2 appears to be a mix-up with 8.5M BDO tokens, the 'nine of 16 pools' figure was not found in REKT, and the rekt-leaderboard statement is attached to the wrong exploit in the timeline. The coverage of the many remaining claims is thin, so this is a partial review. No current-status information was obtained.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"subject_status":"unknown","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}