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 · Triple-A Treasury Hack (July 2026)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 28 → 28 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512968
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T08:35:24.740Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Eamauys9waj9VM7WbcUVCvR7TtsNh78x4GQPJFQWi9mE
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1342 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T08:35:24.666Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"25b13922-977d-4211-a52e-e95f7d52bd0f","new_score":28,"page_slug":"triple-a-treasury-hack-july-2026","prev_score":28,"reason":"The page's core facts -- the ~$11.8M loss, 31-hour drain window, seven affected chains, hot-wallet (not smart-contract) root cause, client-fund segregation, and Triple-A's solvency statement -- are consistently corroborated across independently verified reporting, and quoted statements match cited sources verbatim. The event date matches the slug's 'July 2026' framing with no evidence of a title-year/event-year mismatch. The main weaknesses found are: an unreconciled ETH-amount discrepancy (5,227 vs. 5,287 ETH) presented as settled in the summary despite conflicting figures among the page's own bundled sources; a 'first digital-currency payment company' superlative traceable mainly to the company's own self-description; a regulatory detail (October 2024 Payment Services Regulations) that is factually accurate but not supported by the specific sources cited for that section; and no coverage of a subsequent (post-publication) Tornado Cash laundering development.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}