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 · Ctrl Wallet — Security Exploit and Forced Shutdown
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 22 → 22 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443519887
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T10:05:09.472Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2RbJpYGnZdgh7JwqN7xM7yx8MtA45gEZzhffsGpemQTD
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1399 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T10:05:08.689Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"931907a8-d223-4aca-a200-3a427b25acf4","new_score":22,"page_slug":"ctrl-wallet-security-exploit-and-forced-shutdown","prev_score":22,"reason":"Of 29 factual claims checked against the page's cited evidence, 26 were confirmed outright by official disclosures and independent reporting, one recovery-timeline detail is now stale, one description of the 2024 rebrand was imprecise, and one claim is disputed: the page's title and framing call the shutdown 'forced,' but no source — including the company's own update, which calls it a voluntary 'difficult decision' — shows any regulator, exchange, investor, or court compelled the closure. That single disputed item out of 29 verified claims produces a disputed rate of about 3%, which sits well inside the range where a page's underlying reporting is judged sound, and none of the four open coverage gaps are high priority. The exploit's technical root cause, financial and victim-count figures, attacker breakdown, and the hedged Lazarus Group attribution are all independently corroborated at high confidence, so the page holds up as a whole even though its title overstates what the sourcing supports.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}