Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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_with_notes · Leap Wallet
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
42 → 62 (+20)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443508704
Off-chain at
2026-08-18T20:31:20.695Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
8wso7hGS4M7rPTPbBYH8B49E4G42d5mB5e8hVvS3gy7V
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1892 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-18T20:31:20.546Z","decision":"review_approve_with_notes","investigation_id":"01cb5f02-6492-421b-95ca-fdfb1fe32127","new_score":62,"page_slug":"leap-wallet","prev_score":42,"reason":"This is a calibration adjudication: content accuracy is not in dispute (0/9 claims disputed, 7 confirmed, and the review's calibration_assessment classifies all four identified incidents as attribution 'c' — third-party/market-structural, not own-fraud or suffered-attack). The current score of 42 (WARNING) implies entity-attributable misconduct or negligence per the rubric's fraud-likelihood semantics (docs/SCORING_RUBRIC.md §1), but the record shows a voluntary, non-custodial wallet's business wind-down amid a sector-wide 2026 funding contraction, with a cited source explicitly distinguishing it from fraud-driven collapses like Terra or FTX and confirming no court filings, regulatory actions, or fraud allegations exist. The only entity-attributable shortcoming is an undisclosed shutdown rationale and a compressed 8-week migration window — a transparency/execution issue, not misconduct — which the rubric places in CAUTIONARY (50-69), not WARNING (20-49). I agree with the reviewer's recommended_band and recommended_score. Notes: (Recalibrate score from 42 (WARNING) to 62 (CAUTIONARY) per rubric attribution framework — no own-fraud or misconduct is attributable to Leap's own conduct.) (Add direct citation support for the founder name/location claim (currently corroborated only via independent search of theorg.com/Tracxn, not the cited FinanceFeeds article).) (Cite a source that names leapwallet.lu directly rather than relying on the generic Atomic Wallet phishing-guidance article for that specific claim.)","score_delta":20,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}