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 · Tenderize V2
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 58 → 58 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457414073
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-15T23:03:41.133Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-15T23:04:09.808Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6FV575eiFSBUFCmZSdu4sDvAFe3adCxXcPifH7qhWn7B
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1800 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"476d106ce11478dc879df9ab5e57a498","decided_at":"2026-10-15T23:03:40.964Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.619,"findings_hash":"8m5Xg7QAduSsMoU3aZmAVdRzhKPMbGKc7JgzoTPbB7hJ","investigation_id":"799ef0a4-716e-486c-8b93-360aff2f6c3c","mode":"findings_only","new_score":58,"page_content_hash":"f30f792f4eaeb66b675b5cd13d03690763e729db4d83bd18d7bbeebb8dc1473a","page_slug":"tenderize-v2","prev_score":58,"reason":"The page's funding history, GitHub repository count, and the headline facts of the April 2025 exploit (date, amount, chain, DeFiLlama classification) all check out against independent sources. However, the claim that Halborn audited Tenderize is not supported by the cited Halborn URL (which resolves to a generic marketing page with no mention of Tenderize) and is contradicted by an independent staking-data provider that lists Hacken and CertiK, not Halborn, as the protocol's auditors — this appears in the summary and twice in the Security Audits section. There is also an internal date inconsistency between the Tokenomics section (WAGYU TGE 'in late 2024') and the timeline (TGE in May 2024). The unattributed 'ZachXBT has flagged this entity' claim, repeated twice, has no citation anywhere on the page and no corroboration could be found. TVL and market-comparator figures are presented with more currency than they have; most financial data on the page is roughly a year stale relative to the apparent review date. Several niche claims (WAGYU TGE mechanics, Sei/BeefyBank rollout) could not be verified because the sole source domain (blog.tenderize.me) was unreachable throughout this review.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}