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 · Orion Protocol
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 42 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424310051
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T19:49:41.276Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- B1fVapucAVzauZByQt7Dw9xsNrcspgBw6nApQLRN4Njm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1443 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T19:49:41.028Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"85b48dbf-2c35-4ccd-ad5c-afa98e4b7570","new_score":42,"page_slug":"orion-protocol","prev_score":42,"reason":"The reviewer examined 31 claims and found zero disputed. The reported disputed_pct of 9.7% reflects two unverifiable claims (claim_findings[13] and claim_findings[14]) that both trace to a single inaccessible BeInCrypto URL returning HTTP 403, not to any counter-evidence — these are source-access failures, not factual contradictions. One link_rot finding (claim_findings[30]) affects a non-critical official blog URL in the Audit Coverage Gap section; the underlying audit facts are independently confirmed by CertiK's own post-exploit analysis via a working URL. The two partially_supported findings (claim_findings[7] and claim_findings[28]) involve minor attribution precision — 'PeckShield was first' and the exact date of Tornado Cash deposits — neither of which undermines any core allegation. All five coverage gaps carry medium or low priority. The page is technically accurate and well-sourced; no status change or score penalty is warranted. Editors should update the BeInCrypto citation or find an alternate source for the Kal Ali quote and the February 4 development update.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}