Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
00 (-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}