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
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457404891
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-15T22:30:59.896Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-15T22:31:14.804Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9YRNKpACwxEEHGzq2ZNKbcUn9oaDzgCTyEfitVAbHy3L
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2099 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"b3110d91821bf5074304df37965821c4","decided_at":"2026-10-15T22:30:59.668Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2,"findings_hash":"EN3dmgt3QEeokhiuLH1ige9WFNeQNtSjWSfZwrw9NfXK","investigation_id":"693196ec-705e-492f-a85f-567c036bc4f2","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"cb4a8b00d8655f3e8ade2a196f78db9661cc9d7e29d220036f46fe987ad22332","page_slug":"fake-uniswap-v4-airdrop-phishing-network-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative -- a persistent, multi-campaign Uniswap impersonation problem spanning 2022 to 2026, escalating via Google Ads and the AngelFerno drainer kit -- is well supported by credible, independently verifiable reporting (CoinDesk, Bleeping Computer, CryptoSlate, Protos, crypto.news, Blockaid, Scam Sniffer). Specific figures (73,399 addresses, $8M 2022 loss, $10M fake airdrop, $1.23M July 2025 loss, 146 ETH/May 2026, Scam Sniffer's $494M/42-28-22% market shares, CertiK's $370.3M January 2026) all checked out against primary or credible secondary sources. Two clear errors were found: the page reverses the chronology of AngelFerno's OpenEden/Curvance attacks relative to its Uniswap campaign, and it mischaracterizes SEAL's '356 malicious advertisement links' as a yearly cumulative total when the underlying reporting describes it as a typical weekly volume sustained over a year. A third, more speculative issue is a possible double-count or source confusion between the February 2026 'Ika' incident and the May 2026 'b-block' $400K incident, which share a victim handle in at least one of the page's own cited sources. The page's own discipline in explicitly excluding unverified figures (the '$500 million' and '$12 million' claims) and hedging the Ika amount is a genuine strength. No accepted community submissions existed to review. Largest gaps are the complete absence of law-enforcement/recovery context and Google's platform-level response.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}