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 · Hypervault Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-13)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516792
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:38:44.105Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Bm9ob8k1JEhpd7ghJizb8t48NQ4kVfU3K1ukEU8mVVPq
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1675 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:38:43.939Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"45bd924e-7d36-44bb-b35a-d44591b0fa69","new_score":0,"page_slug":"hypervault-finance","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's central accusation — that Hypervault Finance's team ran a premeditated exit scam draining $3.6-4.64M via deBridge and Tornado Cash, backed by fabricated audit claims — holds up: 14 of 17 checked claims were confirmed against Rekt News, The Block, Decrypt, and Quadriga Initiative, including the operator identity details and technical mechanism (claim_findings[0], [2], [6], [9], [13]). However, two problems bring the disputed rate to about 12%. First, and most serious, claim_findings[11] found the claim that law enforcement reports were filed in Singapore and South Korea could not be traced to any cited source or to eight other sources checked; this is a fabricated detail that lends false official weight to an accusation against named individuals and is flagged as a high-priority coverage gap. Second, claim_findings[8] found the page's own top source contradicts its stated Zenith Security audit-delivery date (Sept 21 vs. the sourced Sept 24, one day before the drain). A third finding, claim_findings[16], shows the 'no compensation fund' statement omits a third-party reimbursement offer reported in the page's own leading source. None of these undermines the core narrative, but the unsourced law-enforcement claim in particular needs correction before the page can be considered fully sound.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}