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 · Kannagi Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424313942
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T20:15:38.131Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GCaC6TBmEsfeDJK2ZbNouSb95DoAtcKPwHcTTuHMbPBL
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1496 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T20:15:37.954Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"36bc0adb-ebef-46a3-af26-c80d2d3271ab","new_score":0,"page_slug":"kannagi-finance","prev_score":2,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 13 of 19 claims, with one hard dispute and two partially-supported findings. The disputed item (claim_findings[17]) is a timeline date error: the SourceHat audit is listed as June 1, 2023 when the audit report is dated June 23, 2023 — a 22-day factual error that should be corrected. More substantively, claim_findings[1] shows the page consistently attributes $2.13 million as the amount 'drained,' whereas Rekt News (a Tier 1 specialist source explicitly cited on the page) distinguishes this as pre-incident TVL and states the scammer extracted approximately $1.1 million. This conflation recurs in the summary, section text, and timeline and warrants revision. Two cited URLs returned 403 errors (link_rot), though neither is the sole source for any critical claim. The unverifiable claim about Discord handles attributed to Rekt News (claim_findings[13]) could not be located in that article and should be removed or re-sourced. Core facts — the exit scam date, the scammer address, the 600 ETH Tornado Cash deposit, the dual-audit gap, and the SyncSwap endorsement — are all well-confirmed by independent sources.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}