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 · Cetus CLMM
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464445906
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:31:42.180Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:31:52.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:31:52.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DJHg4LvBoV1CJERnVaeHbNL5XcDZNow8hqLZDhvmkaUo
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1422 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"6e1fee4ba977b33e91c3c59923f49985","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:31:41.923Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3333,"investigation_id":"cc1ddaee-d8b6-435b-9531-c78d1fdcd65c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":55,"page_slug":"cetus-clmm","prev_score":55,"reason":"Of 14 claims checked, 2 were excluded because their sources blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[9], [10]). Of the remaining 12, 2 were disputed and 2 could not be verified, which gives about 33% and puts the page in the significant-issues band. The disputed items are secondary dates: the vote's scheduled deadline was June 3, 2025, not May 29 (claim_findings[0]), and the proposal date should be May 27, not May 26 (claim_findings[1]). The core account holds up, including the overflow root cause, the $223M loss, the $162M freeze, the 90.9% vote and the relaunch. The penalty is set at the mild end of the band because the errors are minor, the omission found is minor, Cetus is still operating, and the reviewer's confidence is moderate.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":12,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}