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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425400743
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T20:31:57.699Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7LrQ8N711jVbRsseBHpfnP7EUgrFMRFuwaZmgRYxYPc6
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1161 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-09T20:31:57.612Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"693196ec-705e-492f-a85f-567c036bc4f2","new_score":2,"page_slug":"fake-uniswap-v4-airdrop-phishing-network-2026","prev_score":2,"reason":"The page is well-sourced and substantively accurate across its major claims. The 2022 attack details, 2024 media campaign, 2025–2026 Google Ads incidents, SEAL data, and AngelFerno technical descriptions are all confirmed against credible primary or secondary sources. Three findings are unverifiable: one cited X post has a snowflake ID suggesting a July 2026 date (after this review), which flags a potentially inaccurate citation; and two claims about MetaMask blocklisting and Scam Sniffer partner integrations lack supporting citations. One partially-supported finding is a minor technical imprecision about whether the 2022 victim lost WBTC/USDC versus ETH (the LP position was WBTC/USDC but was redeemed for ETH). No claims were found to be fabricated or materially disputed.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}