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 · Texture Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 61 → 61 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465089370
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T23:49:18.721Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T23:49:25.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T23:49:25.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GeyUwGsuNX2zibo72qEAST7hgZ5uhLJruW1dXqbLjYQv
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1686 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"c0aea39c8d0aaae73a2e27f2a3d36e3d","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T23:49:18.477Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.4286,"investigation_id":"161f648c-7701-4e1d-a30d-efbefd4836d7","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":61,"page_slug":"texture","prev_score":61,"reason":"Of 8 claims checked, 1 was excluded because its source blocked the reviewer, and 3 of the remaining 7 (about 43%) could not be verified: the prior-audit failure (claim_findings[2]), the completed Certora review (claim_findings[3]) and the no-regulatory-action claim (claim_findings[6]). The core exploit facts and the 2022 funding round were confirmed (claim_findings[0], [1]). The page also leaves out what happened after July 2025 (omission_findings[0]), and one archive link points to an unrelated article (claim_findings[7]). The penalty is held to the middle of the band because the headline facts hold and the reviewer's confidence is moderate.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"The review reports a material omission: the page stops at July 2025 and says nothing about redeployment, withdrawals or the promised post-mortem. This agrees with the significant band already implied by the percentage, so the band is confirmed rather than raised."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}