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_approve · Superfortune AI (GUA)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 28 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425428986
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T23:38:16.318Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3uoPApTYtMjRHfgpqrnFsYm4w4w7gJHK4EU3bXHf1866
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1438 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T23:38:16.145Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"2edf9864-5d29-4369-a057-c13934ef5eb4","new_score":28,"page_slug":"superfortune-ai-gua","prev_score":28,"reason":"The reviewer checked 24 claims and confirmed 18 outright. The disputed_pct of 8.3% falls within the 0–10% approval band. The single disputed claim (claim_findings[12]) is a stale live market-price snapshot — the current price and market cap figures have moved since the investigation was written, and CoinMarketCap records a different all-time high than CoinGecko. This is a normal data-staleness issue that does not affect the core incident facts. The four partially-supported claims (claim_findings[1], [5], [11]) reflect a measurement-window disagreement on the price decline figure (76% vs. 60%) and an unconfirmed specific ETH conversion amount, neither of which undermines the incident narrative. Core claims — date, token amount, dollar loss, attacker addresses, dual-chain transfer, multisig failure, and the team's explanation — are all well-sourced, including confirmation from a Tier 1 source (Halborn). One high-priority coverage gap (on-chain transaction verification) remains open and is recommended for a future revision but does not warrant withholding approval.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}