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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443510608
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T02:59:32.217Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 77G75keGADtLuYoEdiTXQD1mY7eCBwV1VVki7cns8uGY
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1318 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T02:59:32.097Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"26dc07e2-5780-4704-aa90-143adfe70acb","new_score":0,"page_slug":"solidity-pro-vscode-extension-malicious","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative — two malicious 'Solidity Pro' VS Code extensions published by helper-beeps and web3devtoolsx, exfiltrating crypto and cloud credentials via Telegram/Cloudflare Workers, removed from Open VSX on August 6-7, 2026, and tentatively attributed to the WhiteCobra threat cluster — is well corroborated across independent primary (Yeeth Security, SlowMist) and secondary (The Hacker News, Bleeping Computer, Malpedia, CryptoTimes) sources, with exact IOC and date matches in most cases checked. A small number of granular technical details (a specific SHA-256 hash, an AES-GCM/static-passphrase claim, some of the more obscure harvested-credential types) and remediation-guidance citations to two sources (CyberPress, CyberSecurityNews) could not be independently confirmed, largely due to fetch access limitations rather than found contradictions; no claim was found to be actively disputed by a more credible current source.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}