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 · Panoptic V1.1
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 45 → 45 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443525581
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T11:04:49.687Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 99ynYQKnQWyymmhjsDgDG7Fnhysm3ehLGyGJRjqLR6zr
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1779 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T11:04:49.086Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"ccd5c96d-c9d5-49cc-b59d-3dab935b8d49","new_score":45,"page_slug":"panoptic-v11","prev_score":45,"reason":"The page's checkable content is limited to its summary and 16-entry timeline, since all 7 sections have empty content and the top-level sources_used array is empty; every 'confirmed' verdict here reflects independent verification against outside sources (chiefly Panoptic's own primary post-mortem, Code4rena/Cantina audit reports, and The Block), not against evidence the page itself supplies. The core narrative -- the August 25-28, 2025 position-spoofing incident, its XOR-fingerprinting root cause, dollar figures, whitehat rescue block/timestamp, and bug bounty -- is corroborated in precise detail by Panoptic's own post-mortem and independent secondary coverage. Weaknesses found: the summary's '$4-5 million at risk' figure overstates the page's own timeline math and the primary source's stated '~$4 million'; three dates (the first Code4rena audit, the $7M funding close, and possibly the post-mortem publication date) are first-of-month placeholders that are off from actual dates by 19-26 days; and the claim that 'ZachXBT flagged the incident' could not be corroborated by any source found, including the primary post-mortem itself, which never mentions him. Separately, the complete absence of section content despite a populated section/source scaffold is itself a notable finding: the page's structure implies protocol-overview, technical-architecture, team, and audit-history coverage it does not actually contain.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}