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 · ZetaChain
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 62 → 51 (-11)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462049121
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T11:12:21.142Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T11:12:29.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T11:12:29.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FjFivPyJUAkQbaJD97kM92occzJEitJ9vAjytt61Bh4K
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2368 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"0c0527cedaa1d586e27fd02f74fd9ce4","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T11:12:20.665Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"2f6eca6d-bddc-4eeb-9bac-ad83f94cb1b8","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":51,"page_slug":"zetachain","prev_score":62,"reason":"The historical facts checked hold up: the April 2026 exploit details (claim_findings[0], [1]) and the MiCAR announcement (claim_findings[4]) match their sources. The page is materially out of date, though. It does not mention that ZetaChain wound down its legacy cross-chain services in June 2026 or that holders approved decommissioning the Layer-1 in September 2026 (omission_findings[0], [1]; subject_status), and it still describes the project as an active omnichain platform. It also carries superseded all-time-low and circulating-supply figures (claim_findings[5]-[7]) and a 'led by' Series A attribution the cited release does not make (claim_findings[2]). Because the omissions go to the page's central description of what the project is, the page is judged in the significant band. The verdict is revise rather than deny because the checked claims are accurate and the problems are staleness and omission, not fabrication.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-11,"score_limit":{"applied":-11,"limited":true,"proposed":-25,"rule":"limited_no_second_opinion","second":null},"scored_claims":10,"sequence_num":6,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"approve","reason":"Strictly counting disputed and non-blocked unverifiable findings gives 0% (the only unverifiable finding is source_blocked and excluded), so the percentage alone implies approve. The review reports a critical omission (omission_findings[0]: cross-chain services wound down around June 2026), a material omission (omission_findings[1]: Proposal 68 Layer-1 decommissioning vote) and subject_status.contradicts_page=true. The page presents ZetaChain as an operating omnichain platform, so the percentage understates the problem and the significant band applies."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}