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_approve · OLPC / BnbLabubu Token (PancakeSwap Pool Exploit)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443505112
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-08T01:09:13.486Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GoFrgnwYCLtZde4SrygTEhQdkSqCGZAR9MuQUpHKa68g
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1426 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-08T01:09:12.977Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"d93f8bac-a89c-4acf-9ac0-1ba862a52279","new_score":2,"page_slug":"olpc-bnblabubu-token-pancakeswap-pool-exploit","prev_score":2,"reason":"The page's core factual narrative — the exploit date, attack mechanism, token burn amounts, 1,115,903 USDT extracted, 633.4 ETH deposited to Tornado Cash, and the 46-day premeditated decimalsValue parameter manipulation — is confirmed across multiple independent Tier 2 sources with zero disputed claims (disputed_pct 5.9%). The four partially_supported findings (claim_findings[2], [4], [9], [16]) are minor: PeckShield's 'first identifier' credit omits ExVul's parallel alert, the $60.03M June losses figure is a mid-month running total rather than the final monthly aggregate, Yu Xian is designated 'founder' when co-founder is more precise, and the May 5/6 timeline dates are back-calculated approximations not directly stated in any source. None of these affect the integrity of the core allegation of a premeditated rug pull via smart contract parameter manipulation. Three high-priority coverage gaps (on-chain BscScan citations, audit history, deployer wallet analysis) represent expansion opportunities rather than accuracy failures.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}