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_revise · Namada Protocol — MASP IBC Transfer Logic Exploit (June 19 2026)
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 21 → 6 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464443514
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:22:50.574Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:23:20.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:23:20.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9w1kiWavSYHNubDzbTPYrGkpvZP3JjHuhAuxRG1xcteD
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1637 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"53ad8d8d28e967083597a11a25b5c087","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:22:50.342Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.5,"investigation_id":"d47a5d73-afd6-40e8-9b9d-c0b907a1f5f1","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":6,"page_slug":"namada-protocol-masp-ibc-transfer-logic-exploit-june-19-2026","prev_score":21,"reason":"The core incident (about $600K drained from the Namada MASP, Namada's public confirmation and its white-hat appeal) is corroborated by several outlets. Of the 6 claims that could be checked, 1 is disputed (claim_findings[0]: Namada's confirmation is dated June 21 on the page but two independent reports date it June 20) and 2 are unverifiable background claims with no checked source (claim_findings[5], claim_findings[6]), giving a disputed share of 50%. One further claim, the F12 attribution (claim_findings[3]), could not be checked because the CryptoTimes source blocked the reviewer, and other outlets credit Odaily rather than F12. The attack date of June 19 also conflicts with a June 18 receipt date (claim_findings[1]). Because the reviewer's confidence is low (0.5) and the problems are mostly dating and sourcing rather than the central allegation, the penalty is set at the mild end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}