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 · Resupply
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 32 → 32 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462182877
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T19:06:19.585Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T19:06:36.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T19:06:36.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DRvCMQBzjFSuup7kmSdznzhMb5XWjGf2igC1XgWvLtEV
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1428 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"f2e33233413f2e6d4298f4af63575825","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T19:06:19.446Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"findings_hash":"Azo32d32NAhJEszEWk8jYTdCevVdJ5ibQfR7pHTM2Kpo","investigation_id":"64e2472a-e552-4647-93d9-1fca1269192c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":32,"omissions":{"material":1,"total":2},"page_content_hash":"9cb3d1a9192906526a753224d005bd104203ce215cc4e0baf651b6a0da76fdda","page_slug":"resupply","prev_score":32,"reason":"This review checked a sample of seven claims and the core narrative holds: the June 2025 ERC-4626 donation exploit, the $9.3-9.8M loss range, the audit-scope dispute, the 6M reUSD insurance-pool burn and the August 2025 full repayment all match the sources I could read. Weaknesses are editorial (merge-artifact wording), some unverified details (2.5M RSUP, sreUSD, the Tornado Cash amounts) and compressed sequencing of the Yearn loan. One third-party profile reports a possible June 2026 second attack that is uncorroborated and should be checked.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":2,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}