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 · Verus Protocol (VRSC)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 21 → 21 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443518874
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T00:03:57.294Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GUDXfKCex9cRQv2MAjLbzrxQi52JuMu75QR9zcLcAxvV
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1413 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T00:03:57.177Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"8b05afa2-b3b1-4812-a3c2-2b69513839e8","new_score":21,"page_slug":"verus-protocol-vrsc","prev_score":21,"reason":"The page's core factual claims — the two 2026 bridge exploit amounts, the shared technical root cause, the wallet addresses and transaction hash, the white-hat bounty negotiation, and the July 8 reopening without a confirmed patch or audit — are all independently corroborated by primary research (Merkle Science, Halborn, Blockaid) and multiple news outlets. Two minor sourcing defects were found: a TVL statistic supported elsewhere but not by the specific sources cited in that section, and an overstated dual-attribution of the Wormhole/Nomad comparison to both Halborn and Merkle Science when only the latter makes it. The page appropriately hedges its inferences (e.g., 'raising concerns,' 'indicating') rather than presenting speculation as fact, and does not make the unsupported 'inactive team' claims seen elsewhere; its main structural weakness is that it functions almost entirely as a bridge-incident report rather than a full protocol profile, leaving the current (post-July) bridge status and broader governance/regulatory context unaddressed.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}