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 · Q2 2026 Bridge Exploit Wave
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443519578
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T07:07:33.321Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Enu6jcxcPeqFnqEVTpqBKgAuZR2MTpuPuLqCUkKz6CN4
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1260 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T07:07:33.126Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"83dae395-6719-4cb4-b5fc-4a2b875617e0","new_score":0,"page_slug":"q2-2026-bridge-exploit-wave","prev_score":0,"reason":"The large majority of per-incident facts (Drift, KelpDAO, Hyperbridge, THORChain, Verus, Syscoin, Taiko) are well-sourced and independently corroborated, including several details confirmed directly against primary incident reports (LayerZero, THORChain). The page's central quantitative framing contains a clear denominator error: it claims Drift and KelpDAO together represent 'over 76% of bridge-related losses,' but Drift is not classified as a bridge exploit by the cited sources, and the 76% figure actually describes their share of total quarterly losses; a related $340 million cumulative bridge-loss figure is applied inconsistently across sections and does not match the sum of the page's own itemized incidents. Several attribution and timeline characterizations (confidence levels, THORChain's resumption timeline) are mild overstatements or compressions of more nuanced source material.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}