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 · Lucifer DaaS
- Sequence
- #7
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465180614
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-04T05:14:40.399Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-04T05:15:06.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-04T05:15:06.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- vvAKMa6hNUyu25cLqxn1BpvdKAaCnd7ihcy9FehTrtv
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2073 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"bf90202bb6c5c935ffe46b135b02af53","decided_at":"2026-11-04T05:14:40.241Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.0588,"findings_hash":"E7HdTCMubhfaL6t68bLQMXxbzHmuZcNgszhKB9ZRr6VZ","investigation_id":"290c0f45-6d7c-4e0d-9ead-b049aaa7e965","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"51684a8b769f09a25c077ca62356d6f2189380c4733b57460f86251f399f51b8","page_slug":"lucifer-daas","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is substantially well-sourced and its central claims about Lucifer DaaS's business model, version history, platform-ban resilience, and IPFS migration are corroborated by independent re-publications of the cited BleepingComputer/Flare reporting, even though the primary URL itself returned HTTP 403 on direct fetch during this review. The industry-context statistics (BlockSec's $135M/1,910-contract dataset, Scam Sniffer's 2024/2025 figures, the Pink/Angel/Inferno predecessor-drainer history) all checked out exactly against primary or near-primary sources. The one clear defect found is in the 'DaaS Industry Losses and Research' section: the page attributes the $1.93 billion figure to 'Kroll's H1 2025 estimate,' but extensive searching found no Kroll publication with this figure, and the page's own cited source (Phishdestroy) does not name Kroll either — the closest matching published figure is attributed to CryptoPresales. This looks like an invented sourcing detail that should be corrected or removed. No other factual errors, dead links among directly-checked URLs, or current-status omissions were found; the page's claim that no arrests or operator identities have surfaced remains accurate as of the most recent available reporting (May 2026, with no newer coverage found through November 2026).","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}