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 · Allbridge Core Second Flash-Loan Exploit (July 2026)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 20 → 6 (-14)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443513892
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T12:55:29.609Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- G4chQCRs595Krn8QEKu3iMmHXqCzRwpmKYH4tNyFcc43
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1684 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T12:55:29.387Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f74f4088-dfe6-458b-8b9f-d6ac9d197312","new_score":6,"page_slug":"allbridge-core-second-flash-loan-exploit-july-2026","prev_score":20,"reason":"This page's central account -- a $1.65-1.66 million flash-loan exploit on Allbridge Core's Solana pools in July 2026, framed as a repeat of the April 2023 incident -- is well supported by Tier-1 reporting, and the review specifically checked for and found no blending of facts between the two separate incidents. However, roughly 26% of the page's individual claims (5 disputed, 6 unverifiable of 43 total) could not be confirmed, including an unreconciled internal contradiction between two different on-chain withdrawal breakdowns presented as settled fact in different sections (claim_findings[11] vs claim_findings[27]) and an overstated Risk Assessment claim that six post-2023 security audits 'missed' a Solana-specific gap, when only two audits post-date 2023 and neither was scoped to Solana (claim_findings[32]). A disputed TVL figure (claim_findings[8], claim_findings[42]), a misdated industry-context item, and an uncorroborated quote attributed to an analyst named 'Hupzy' round out the disputed set. None of these issues touch the page's core allegations, so denial or delisting is not warranted, but the volume and structural nature of the gaps -- particularly the two restated as high-priority coverage gaps -- call for revision before the page can be considered fully settled.","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}