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 · ChainDrop / Mini Shai-Hulud npm Supply Chain Worm (August 2026)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443505840
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-08T03:33:59.358Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HdChLYaj3MB1hTjb4JACGrK4WbmHpUffTjLjbA1iF9TL
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1309 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-08T03:33:59.044Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"9b3e7fc9-d98c-4d79-8b5d-852d1bd6f02b","new_score":0,"page_slug":"chaindrop-mini-shai-hulud-npm-supply-chain-worm-august-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer examined 23 atomic claims and found zero outright disputed findings; all 7 partially_supported verdicts involve minor technical granularity issues rather than contested core allegations. The disputed_pct of 8.7% falls within the 0-10% approval band. The most notable issue — NHS CC-4781 (claim_findings[17]) being misplaced in the ChainDrop regulatory-response section when it was issued three months earlier for the TanStack wave — is a contextual presentation concern, not a fabricated claim. Single-source IOCs such as the 75 RPC endpoint count (claim_findings[11]) and specific commit author details (claim_findings[19]) appear in only one primary source but are not contradicted. Two high-priority coverage gaps exist (on-chain contract transaction history; downstream credential abuse), which should be addressed in a future revision but do not undermine the page's current factual integrity.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}