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 · Bonzo Finance
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 39 → 39 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457608538
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T10:43:58.496Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T10:44:11.975Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6ybYrCp1CixnsTjD4SXkVDg6LDdUHyrsY34fTuLdBDTS
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1959 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"96df4149523c5c4e40c454b3d221181e","decided_at":"2026-10-16T10:43:58.086Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2941,"findings_hash":"BvgTyFYA8mXWvZntcFjkLzYdoJu4cD1E7S6oT9CTBJHy","investigation_id":"eb7d60ce-600d-4768-9ba4-a4f9e2120583","mode":"findings_only","new_score":39,"page_content_hash":"403d27797df036eb6847daabfc310c9d9aa069085e144349a5ba25e69d046df9","page_slug":"bonzo-finance","prev_score":39,"reason":"The core incident narrative -- attack mechanics, root cause, dollar amounts, timestamps, TVL impact, and recovery plan -- is well sourced and holds up against independent verification of the cited official incident report, CoinDesk, and Rekt News reporting. Two material defects were found: the page mischaracterizes Halborn's pre-launch audit as having found 'no critical vulnerabilities,' when the audit's own published findings list four critical-severity issues (since remediated) -- this error appears twice (sections 1 and 7). Separately, the Fund Movement section misattributes an EVM address that Rekt News identifies as belonging to the primary attacker (Wallet A) post-bridging, instead presenting it as a distinct 'second wallet' alongside the actual Wallet B description that immediately follows, creating a confusing and inaccurate on-chain narrative. A softer issue is the claim that the Lloyds/Aberdeen/Archax tokenized FX transaction occurred 'around the same period' as the July 2026 exploit, when the underlying transaction and its case study predate the exploit by roughly six months to a year. Brady Gentile's specific ASU degree and Swirlds Labs employment claim could not be verified against any source, including the ones the page itself cites for his bio. Coverage gaps include regulatory/legal follow-up and attacker attribution leads.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}