Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Sui
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#5
Score
33 → 57 (+24)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
426514433
Off-chain at
2026-06-14T23:15:56.020Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
77hktaCyCSzTLoXmYjzJotKXJrmJdvUfzLnWnxS7eXmY
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1474 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:15:55.887Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"5d6a6e3d-9ec3-45e6-8461-82efc3ea7707","new_score":57,"page_slug":"sui","prev_score":33,"reason":"The calibration review (confidence 0.87) found zero disputed claims across all six claim findings — the page content is accurate and stands. The current score of 33 (WARNING band) is demonstrably too harsh because the score_modifier penalized Sui for incidents it suffered rather than committed: the Cetus $223M exploit was a third-party DEX hack (claim_findings[0], [2]), the $29M SUI theft was a victim-side event with no established Sui negligence (claim_findings[1]), and ZachXBT's withdrawal reflects a tooling and support concern rather than fraud (claim_findings[5]). Positive exonerating evidence — a spot SUI ETF listed on Nasdaq (claim_findings[3]) and proactive SEC engagement (claim_findings[4]) — further confirms the WARNING band over-penalizes a legitimate, institutionally-backed protocol. Material caveats remain (low validator count, token unlock pressure through 2030, unresolved insider-selling allegation) and are already accurately documented on the page, warranting CAUTIONARY (57) rather than VERIFIED. A score_modifier_delta of +24 corrects the miscalibration without removing legitimate risk disclosure.","score_delta":24,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}