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 · Silo Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 52 → 47 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425430297
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T23:46:57.752Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Cn5EHoHcYDkgXPbLuihorG5ekxWYtDSGtfitWJKousJs
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1375 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T23:46:57.577Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"56838e34-4563-4210-9f8e-bc439f96bf7c","new_score":47,"page_slug":"silo-finance","prev_score":52,"reason":"The review found zero disputed claims across 22 checked (4.5% disputed_pct, entirely from partially_supported findings), placing this page firmly in the approve band. The five partially-supported findings are all minor: off-by-one date discrepancies in claim_findings[13] and [14] (IRMv2 Arbitrum deployment date, Immunefi bugfix review publication date), a ~10% ATH price overstatement in claim_findings[7] ($1.05 vs $0.91-0.96 on primary trackers), and a roadmap publication date error in claim_findings[22]. Core security incident claims — the IRMv1 vulnerability, RAMSES white-hat drain, and audited-vs-deployed divergence — are all confirmed by Tier 1 sources. A small score penalty of -5 is applied to account for the minor inaccuracies and one instance of link rot (cryptopanic citation, HTTP 403). The high-priority coverage gap — a June 2025 $545K exploit of a pre-release leverage contract — is a material omission that warrants editorial expansion but does not invalidate the existing V1 investigation content.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}