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_approve · Allbridge
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 28 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443561703
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:39:20.080Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- g6uJb69nGE3E952F5McDsNxa5TPS4ZwYCWTqawbMapg
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1456 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"067df94702056a8eaf75eb44b499a2da","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:39:19.797Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0667,"investigation_id":"c2440c5d-c86e-4b7d-bb6a-f3a485c94fe2","new_score":28,"page_slug":"allbridge","prev_score":28,"reason":"The reviewer found the page's core factual record accurate: all three security incidents (April 2023 BNB Chain, July 2026 Solana, August 2026 Base CCTP), their dollar amounts, dates, and attack mechanisms are independently corroborated by multiple tier-1/tier-2 outlets, with only immaterial rounding differences (claim_findings[5]). Zero claims were disputed and disputed_pct came in at 7%, well within the approval range. The only soft spots are minor: a co-founder omission (claim_findings[2]) and the 'systemic pattern / repeat vulnerability' framing (claim_findings[10]) resting on secondary outlets rather than a primary Allbridge statement, plus one claim about the May 2023 post-mortem that the reviewer could not independently re-verify (claim_findings[7]). None of these rise to disputed-core-allegation severity, no link rot or staleness was found on critical citations, and coverage gaps identified are medium/low priority rather than high, so no escalation is warranted.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}