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 · Inferno Drainer
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462181102
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T18:59:58.935Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T19:00:18.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T19:00:18.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 33s8mPmtJXvNFmn5UPwUxrFpxRUe4Zm6YH13P1fRNerT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2492 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"bc83a3a78e1155505a1525f3e9ecfe01","band_override":{"actual_delta":-5,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"The core figures hold up: the Check Point, Group-IB, CryptoSlate and Hacker News numbers were confirmed (claim_findings[0], [1], [2], [6], [8]), and none of the 11 checked claims was disputed or unverifiable, so the claim-based disputed rate is 0%. The verdict moves from approve to a minor revision because of the high-priority coverage gap on the October 2024 Angel Drainer handover, whose cited Blockaid post (published January 2024) does not mention it (claim_findings[7]), and because several details are unsupported or misattributed: the 229-brand figure, the 500 fake token contracts, the 2023-11-10 date, and the September 9, 2023 detail credited to Group-IB instead of Check Point (claim_findings[3], [4], [5], [9]). The only omission is minor (no coverage after May 2025), and the reviewer found the subject's status consistent with the page."},"decided_at":"2026-10-27T18:59:58.609Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"72a34a8b-805c-4346-bba7-c70433a66561","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"inferno-drainer","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core figures hold up: the Check Point, Group-IB, CryptoSlate and Hacker News numbers were confirmed (claim_findings[0], [1], [2], [6], [8]), and none of the 11 checked claims was disputed or unverifiable, so the claim-based disputed rate is 0%. The verdict moves from approve to a minor revision because of the high-priority coverage gap on the October 2024 Angel Drainer handover, whose cited Blockaid post (published January 2024) does not mention it (claim_findings[7]), and because several details are unsupported or misattributed: the 229-brand figure, the 500 fake token contracts, the 2023-11-10 date, and the September 9, 2023 detail credited to Group-IB instead of Check Point (claim_findings[3], [4], [5], [9]). The only omission is minor (no coverage after May 2025), and the reviewer found the subject's status consistent with the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}