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_approve · BlazeStake
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 72 → 72 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423482140
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-01T00:21:11.484Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6FY4tbudt5APHBALqiDoskoCeGwTB1mNnRYzSB1D2WC3
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1435 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-01T00:21:11.212Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"3b11ad47-fb22-4e94-8358-15986f869130","new_score":72,"page_slug":"blazestake","prev_score":72,"reason":"The reviewer assessed 25 claims and found 16 confirmed, 5 partially supported, 1 disputed, and 1 unverifiable, yielding a disputed_pct of 8% — within the approval band. The sole disputed finding (claim_findings[21]) concerns a running audit count error in the timeline, which is a peripheral detail, not a core protocol claim. The recurring 'seven audits' figure (claim_findings[2] and claim_findings[9]) understates the actual eight audits found on the official audits page, which is directionally safe — it does not inflate security coverage. The unverifiable TVL figure (claim_findings[23]) cites a source that does not contain the data, but the number is directionally consistent with independently known peak TVL. The partially-supported MarginFi findings (claim_findings[18], [19], [24]) concern a one-day date discrepancy and imprecise framing of a multi-day outflow figure for a third party, neither of which affects the core BlazeStake risk assessment. No link rot, no stale critical citations, and no high-priority coverage gaps were identified. Reviewer confidence is 0.82.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}