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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 3 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462045603
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T10:59:42.843Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T11:00:03.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T11:00:03.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 65aUgMaK1BeCg3jxP1GvHS3PHmMbVQhDcaS7VNRJVtiu
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1897 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"4ceb56d69b669091bcd8d2dff3521cf0","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T10:59:42.474Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2222,"investigation_id":"398c8634-edab-4f6a-8f3d-ca0abc756f59","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"darksword-ios-safari-zero-click-exploit-chain-targeting-crypto-wallets","prev_score":3,"reason":"Of 10 claims checked, 1 could not be read because the source blocked the reviewer and was left out, and 2 of the remaining 9 were disputed (about 22%). claim_findings[3] shows the actor attributions come from Google's Threat Intelligence Group, not a single research note as the page says. claim_findings[5] shows the reason given for the iOS 18.7.7 backport is the opposite of what the cited TechCrunch article reports. Named wallet apps are credited to the wrong sources (claim_findings[1] and [2]), and the page omits the October 2026 Censys report of continued wallet targeting (omission_findings[0]). The core facts hold: the six CVEs, the March 2026 disclosure, the April 1 patch release, and the careful hedging on unconfirmed fund theft.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-12,"scored_claims":9,"sequence_num":2,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"minor","from_band":"minor","reason":"omission_findings[0] is a material omission: the October 2026 Censys report of continued DarkSword/Coruna wallet targeting is not on the page, which stops at September. This does not contradict the page and the report names no victims, so it moves the penalty to the upper part of the minor band rather than into a harsher band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}