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 · Roe Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 44 → 44 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464370928
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:03:56.364Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:04:24.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:04:24.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AJqR72KwZMmP3VYtA7DQHeVfD3u4N5uuNDQXdni5S4E9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1365 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"634c22a6ff31d1b59ff2e0f44b43250a","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:03:56.161Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"4fba81bf-8c5e-492e-9a20-bcdad19abd7f","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":44,"page_slug":"roe-finance","prev_score":44,"reason":"The core event, a flash-loan oracle manipulation exploit on 2023-01-11 costing about $80,000, was corroborated by secondary sources (claim_findings[0]). Excluding two findings the reviewer could not check because the sources blocked access, 1 of 4 checkable claims was unverifiable (claim_findings[3], the no-post-mortem claim), giving a disputed share of about 25%. The ZachXBT wording (claim_findings[4]) overstates the evidence and the chain list is incomplete (claim_findings[5]), so those sentences should be corrected. The detailed on-chain figures and addresses are still unchecked because the primary sources were blocked, which is a coverage limit and not a defect of the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":4,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}