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 · Euler Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 58 → 58 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425204262
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-08T22:49:06.056Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3VS5GwxUjeFxjCtUDZM9kTaohpDKedHWe96Gz5AQA6hm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1388 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-08T22:49:05.857Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"04f904e4-8932-42bf-92cb-e7a23d2f99b2","new_score":58,"page_slug":"euler-finance","prev_score":58,"reason":"The review found 14 of 24 claims fully confirmed and 8 partially supported, producing a disputed_pct of 8.3% — within the 0–10% approval band. The single formally disputed claim (claim_findings[14]) is a 4-day date discrepancy: the page places the Lazarus Group wallet interaction on March 13, 2023, while Tier 1 sources from Chainalysis and CoinDesk consistently date it to March 17. This is a peripheral detail and does not affect the core exploit narrative. The partially supported claims are directionally accurate but imprecise — notably, the '45+ audits' figure reflects post-launch retrospective counting (contemporaneous launch reports cited 29–31), and the '$1.5 billion TVL by early 2025' claim misattributes a late-April 2025 peak and omits the subsequent decline to approximately $273 million as of June 2026. A high-priority coverage gap on the alleged attacker identity (named in at least one security firm's report) is flagged for expansion; per platform policy, open coverage gaps are grounds for revision, not denial.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}