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_with_notes · Hypurr NFTs
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 74 (+32)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443509536
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-19T16:40:05.815Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9i7ke8yPsZnMpTGPfMrfZG2iT5dqVJpSxvBVvaMMiKu4
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2517 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-19T16:40:05.696Z","decision":"review_approve_with_notes","investigation_id":"a11c7577-4338-477d-8f85-f61ec2de41f6","new_score":74,"page_slug":"hypurr-nfts","prev_score":42,"reason":"This is a calibration review: the page's facts hold up (0 of 11 claims disputed; the two weaker verdicts are minor date/precision issues, not material errors), so the content itself is approved with notes. The score, however, is miscalibrated. Per calibration_assessment and the rubric's own attribution test, the only incident actually tied to Hypurr NFTs / the Hyper Foundation is a third-party wallet-phishing theft against individual Genesis Event recipients (claim_findings[1]-[2], [8]); the cited reporting explicitly attributes the compromise to victim-side wallet security failures, not to any flaw, negligence, or misconduct by the Foundation (claim_findings[2], sources_consulted notes on thedefiant.io). The three other timeline incidents (JELLYJELLY, Hyperdrive, HyperVault) concern separate Hyperliquid-ecosystem protocols and were correctly flagged by the reviewer as ecosystem context that should not be conflated with the entity under review (coverage_gaps[3]). A current score of 42/WARNING implies entity-attributable risk that the evidence does not support; a third-party-attributed incident against an otherwise legitimately delivered, actively-traded product maps to the low end of VERIFIED, not WARNING. Notes: (Populate the empty page `sections` with narrative content — currently only summary and timeline carry substance.) (Correct the HyperVault timeline date to Sept 26, 2025 per the independently corroborating source (page currently states Sept 28).) (Correct the floor-price-settlement timeline date to align with the cited article's own Sept 29 dateline (page currently states Oct 1).) (Replace or supplement the low-credibility (tier 3) sole source for the $62M/24h trading-volume figure with a verifiable secondary source.) (Explicitly label the JELLYJELLY, Hyperdrive, and HyperVault timeline entries as ecosystem context distinct from Hypurr NFTs / Hyper Foundation to avoid guilt-by-association.) (Add coverage of any post-incident developments (recovery, attacker identification/sanctions, wallet-security changes) given the page's freshest substantive reporting is nearly a year stale relative to the current date.)","score_delta":32,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}