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 · YO Protocol
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 68 → 68 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464275816
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T23:24:21.737Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T23:24:44.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T23:24:44.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 71JUMgjLk9BrjDKeiSzw9YWa9jzejQmg5w5LrnUG5TAd
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1877 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"121d5f4361567aad5330e284ddf4cc37","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T23:24:21.480Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"bf7cd9dc-f8da-4e68-b7c5-87ea67ecc13c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":68,"page_slug":"yo-protocol","prev_score":68,"reason":"Of 8 countable claim findings (one blocked DeFiLlama check excluded), 2 could not be verified (claim_findings[6] and claim_findings[8], both not found), giving a disputed share of 25%. Funding, audit dates and the bug bounty were confirmed, but claim_findings[3] shows the 'eight audits' count is outdated and inconsistent with the page's own list. The page also leaves out a material January 2026 loss of about $3.7 million from a faulty token swap (omission_findings[0]), a high-priority coverage gap, so the page is revised rather than approved. The reviewer's confidence was moderate (0.55), which keeps the penalty in the lower part of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"minor","from_band":"minor","reason":"omission_findings[0] (material) and subject_status.contradicts_page: the page omits the January 2026 stkGHO swap loss of about $3.7 million, which YO says it covered. The percentage alone would sit in the minor band, so the omission is held to the minor band rather than approve. It is not raised to significant because the page's literal statement of no hacks or exploits is accurate, user balances were reportedly unaffected, and the protocol is still operating."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}