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
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 461974381
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T06:47:01.471Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T06:47:37.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T06:47:37.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4Bw2v7ivNwgGMJhNrhgaZYRMsSJNX7RKwEJKjbsRHoaB
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2085 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"a7be6b894ff344d06e7796b5956a7c4c","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T06:47:01.089Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0909,"investigation_id":"e017af8a-4584-4968-886a-17da7a811d8c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"lazarus-group-tradertraitor-dprk-september-2026-blitz-campaign","prev_score":0,"reason":"Most checked claims match the sources: the Bitget detection time, the CEO's preliminary North Korea attribution, the Liquid Network figures and the Elliptic assessment (claim_findings[2], [3], [7], [8], [9]). About 9% of countable findings were unverifiable, and one blocked source (claim_findings[10]) was left out of the count. The page still states Bitget's loss as $351.6M although Bitget later raised it to $387.5M (claim_findings[0], [1]; omission_findings[0]), which is a material omission on the page's central figure. A cited CryptoNews AFX link is dead and used in several places (claim_findings[6]), and 'formally attributed' overstates AFX's 'consistent with external attribution' wording (claim_findings[5]). The reviewer's confidence was moderate and several sections were not independently checked, so the penalty is kept small.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-10,"scored_claims":11,"sequence_num":3,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"minor","from_band":"approve","reason":"The percentage alone (1 of 11 countable findings, about 9%) implies approve. But omission_findings[0] is rated material: Bitget later revised the loss from $351.6M to $387.5M, and the page uses the old figure in the headline, summary, section heading and timeline (claim_findings[0] and [1] are stale). The dead AFX citation and the high-priority primary-source coverage gap point the same way. Escalated one band to minor."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}