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 · Atomic Wallet Hack
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 10 → 10 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512906
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T08:26:44.407Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8d87f7hE9M7c19gpqLn1gbpLwR1vXLfz3988GZGFyhNs
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1243 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T08:26:44.320Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"a746da55-5f10-4d44-931c-b05b2931a804","new_score":10,"page_slug":"atomic-wallet-hack","prev_score":10,"reason":"The large majority of factual claims on this page -- attribution language, direct quotations, dollar figures, and litigation procedure -- were independently verified against their cited primary and secondary sources and found accurate, including correctly hedged attribution confidence language and appropriate distinction between filed and dismissed litigation. However, the review found a materially stale claim (the page asserts no subsequent U.S. litigation exists, when a new class action has been publicly reported in N.D. Cal. since mid-2025), an incomplete defendant list omitting a third named individual (Ilia Brusov), a statistical mischaracterization (an Elliptic 'average' loss figure presented as a 'median'), a timeline entry citing the wrong Treasury press release for the Garantex sanctions date, and an incorrect filing date in the timeline for the original class action.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}