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 · Swan Treasury (STY Token)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 18 → 18 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512216
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T07:20:29.907Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7WRzPjPsxCGtHtJYHPAvtzsfLBocXZTiXiLJJwMxw5ZK
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1142 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T07:20:29.693Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"c34f3c80-b857-491a-a7d3-690b042fc2ed","new_score":18,"page_slug":"swan-treasury-sty-token","prev_score":18,"reason":"The page's core factual claims about the July 30, 2026 Swan Treasury exploit (mechanism, dollar amounts, flash-loan size, token counts, and the Defimon Alerts quote) are well-supported by two independently reviewed, mutually consistent articles and corroborated by additional web search; the direct quotation is accurate and correctly attributed. Minor issues found: one paraphrase drift ('vault rights' vs. the source's 'treasury rights'), one unattributed editorial generalization presented as sourced ('security researchers characterize...'), and a citation-freshness mismatch in two sections where 'as of August 20' claims are footnoted to July 31-dated articles rather than to the page's own later verification (only the timeline entry discloses that methodology transparently).","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}