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 · LayerZero Labs
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 53 → 53 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464287000
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:04:03.971Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:04:31.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:04:31.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9yfV6rM3dw7wsvFyGKjBvTiDh13bcvHBVwnEFsiiEHcm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2107 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b4257c9e65d7605a4b23489331da9e6f","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:04:03.626Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1111,"investigation_id":"52cfb889-0676-4834-abff-8a138199d778","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":53,"page_slug":"layerzero-labs","prev_score":53,"reason":"Most of the page holds up: the incident timeline, LayerZero's May 2026 admission, the 47% 1-of-1 DVN figure and the migration totals match their cited sources (claim_findings[4] to [7]). The percentage of disputed claims is low (about 11%, excluding one source-blocked finding). However, claim_findings[0] shows the Regulatory and Legal section states that no court filings were found, when Evercrest (KelpDAO) filed a civil claim against LayerZero Labs and its CEO in September 2026; the review rates this omission material. The summary also states KelpDAO's contested allegation of LayerZero's prior approval as fact (claim_findings[1]), and the BitGo WBTC figure of $7.4B matches neither cited source (claim_findings[2], [3]). The page needs revision to add the lawsuit as an unproven allegation and to attribute the approval claim.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":9,"sequence_num":5,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"By claim count only 1 of 9 countable findings is disputed (about 11%, minor band). But that one finding is the page's Regulatory and Legal statement that no court filings exist, which is contradicted by the September 2026 Evercrest (KelpDAO) civil claim in the BC Supreme Court. The reviewer rates this omission material and marks subject_status.contradicts_page true. The claim is also the page's own accepted submission and a high-priority coverage gap, so the minor band understates the problem."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}