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 · Sturdy V1
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512770
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T08:06:25.857Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 72kjU8U3XXQhCP9A2VhiEToDhzHg8PU9Xt1ffAv1N3pv
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1500 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T08:06:25.731Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"299815f1-eacc-4b93-ab24-10d1c6de9f95","new_score":62,"page_slug":"sturdy-v1","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's core narrative — that Sturdy V1 suffered (rather than committed) a $800K Balancer read-only reentrancy exploit on June 12, 2023, followed by a prompt pause/reopen and an eventual formal sunset in favor of Sturdy V2 — is well-supported by multiple independent, credible sources, including a verbatim-verified quotation from Rekt News. The most significant issues found are: a seed-round figure overstated by roughly 13% ($4.4M claimed vs. $3.9M reported by the page's own cited source and independent aggregators), a mis-cited source for the Sam Forman/bounty timeline claim (true but attributed to the wrong article), a one-month CertiK audit-date discrepancy versus CertiK's own published record, an imprecise reopening date (June 15 vs. the actually-reported June 16), and — most substantively — a 'TVL remains modest' current-state characterization that omits Sturdy's much larger, independently reported Bittensor SN10 subnet activity (~$125-200M in allocated deposits as of 2025), creating a stale and incomplete picture of the protocol's present scale. No evidence contradicts the page's central 'suffered attack, not misconduct' framing.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}