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 · Sirio Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 53 → 53 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 463283729
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-30T12:23:14.749Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-30T12:23:18.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-30T12:23:18.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6tt6W8uiUxGGWpx9zNE6iW6BoEah9oN4E72yfHpHzVpT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1770 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"1a2026c7bc9cc71e521ca23f53d0a17f","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-30T12:23:14.514Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.4286,"investigation_id":"387ed05b-91c6-4dc9-9195-af8cc69d4052","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":53,"page_slug":"sirio-finance","prev_score":53,"reason":"Of 7 checked claims, 3 could not be verified (claim_findings[3], [4], [6]), giving about 43% unverified and placing the page in the significant-issues band. The core exploit date, flashloan technique, launch date and TVL figure were supported, but the QuillAudits reentrancy-guard cause (claim_findings[1]) is stated as an analysis finding while resting only on anonymous reviews and team posts, and the $2-3 million range was only partly matched ($2 million per DefiLlama). The page also omits DefiLlama's deprecated status while claiming the website and social media remain active. The reviewer's confidence is low (0.4) because many sources were unreadable, so the penalty is kept in the lower half of the band and the page is not denied.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"The review reports a material omission: DefiLlama lists the protocol as deprecated, yet the page says the website and social media remain active (claim_findings[6], omission_findings[0]). The percentage already falls in the significant band, so the band is confirmed rather than raised."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}