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 · Hypervault Finance
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516770
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:38:44.047Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6iBUuByvZvneuxKkyhEHfB5GrsNQRHbfF6KjaU4XaarM
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1040 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:38:43.939Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"45bd924e-7d36-44bb-b35a-d44591b0fa69","new_score":0,"page_slug":"hypervault-finance","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a team-orchestrated exit scam on September 25-26, 2025 draining $3.6-4.64M via deBridge and Tornado Cash, fabricated audit claims, and an alleged operator identity ('Nick Olsen/Olsson') — is well corroborated by Rekt News and multiple independent news outlets, and the rug-pull characterization is properly attributed to named analysts rather than inferred solely from fund movement. Two issues were identified: an unsupported claim of law enforcement reports in Singapore and South Korea that could not be traced to any cited or other checked source, and an internal date discrepancy in the Zenith Security audit timeline versus the page's own primary source.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}