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 · Alpha Homora
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 20 (-18)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562463
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:43:05.961Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- J4pmc2i5UJXEk95H6apkhreKchMt2ZENBLZQjbQqTM2w
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1745 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"dc715a95af815aa0dd2065b7901a45a2","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:43:05.699Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3125,"investigation_id":"4ffdc414-f996-4307-8fb2-c582485a1622","new_score":20,"page_slug":"alpha-homora","prev_score":38,"reason":"The page's central narrative -- the February 2021 Iron Bank exploit via Alpha Homora V2, its mechanics and dollar amounts, and the 2023 Iron Bank account-freeze/debt dispute -- is solidly confirmed by live, independent tier-1 and tier-2 sources (claim_findings[0], [1], [2], [5], [9], [11], [12]). However, the reviewer's 31% disputed rate crosses into significant-issue territory: claim_findings[7] found no support in Alpha's own post-mortem for the page's claim that the team identified a 'prime suspect,' claim_findings[8] found the specific ETH deployer-address transfer breakdown conflicts with an independently reviewed source, and claim_findings[10] found the page overstates auditor failure since PeckShield reportedly did flag the exploited resolveReserve access-control issue. Two additional claims about the founders and peak TVL rely on now-dead links (claim_findings[3]), and a high-priority coverage gap notes the page has not been updated since 2023-2024 despite a 2026 review date. None of the disputed items undermine the core allegation, but the pattern of embellished or unverifiable secondary detail, combined with stale sourcing on a still-open dispute, warrants revision and a period of active monitoring rather than outright approval or denial.","score_delta":-18,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}