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 · Harbor Protocol
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 50 → 50 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464289413
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:12:36.616Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:13:06.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:13:06.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6hXth1akSsrownzWirfAk6QGHJp21dYhbMNT2CZKzFyo
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1557 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b2f63ebe82bec9cc7fa96e9787a76dc3","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:12:36.372Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.5,"investigation_id":"a95c7e99-75b1-4edf-bcf5-96d923ec7662","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":50,"page_slug":"harbor-protocol","prev_score":50,"reason":"Of 10 countable claim findings (one was excluded because its source was blocked), 3 were disputed and 2 could not be verified, giving 50%, which falls in the significant-issues band. The disputed items are attributions that no fetched source supports: DeDotFi and PeckShield 'confirming' the exploit was unrelated to the Exactly attack (claim_findings[0] and [1], in both the section text and the timeline), and ZachXBT 'flagging' the protocol (claim_findings[2]). The named attacker address (claim_findings[3]) could not be found in any source, and the primary Comdex post-mortems were unreachable, which is a high-priority coverage limit rather than a defect of the page. The core account of two 2023 incidents, the roughly $370k to $81k TVL drop and the later zero-TVL status is supported, so the penalty sits in the lower-middle of the band and the page is not delisted.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":10,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}