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_revise · Uniswap Google Ad Phishing Campaign (May 2026)
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423214566
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-30T18:52:57.759Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2J1yVi6iTUNjswKX9appZ2xcvBgB2LRLHa1fzFt9eP5R
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1426 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-05-30T18:52:57.517Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"58625252-4783-49c8-bbb5-d44243a2b444","new_score":0,"page_slug":"uniswap-google-ad-phishing-campaign-may-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is substantially accurate and well-sourced, with 22 of 30 claims fully confirmed against the primary SEAL Radar report and multiple independent outlets, and no link rot or stale sources. The single disputed finding (claim_findings[26]) is a material factual error: the @ika_xbt victim incident is labeled as May 2026 on the page, but all corroborating evidence — including the victim's own X post and Hayden Adams' response — places the incident in February 2026, approximately three months earlier. A high-priority coverage gap further notes that the drainer tool in that incident was AngelFerno, not Inferno or Vanilla Drainer as implied by section context. Additionally, the Hayden Adams timeline entry (claim_findings[29]) dates his statement to February 1 when the confirmed date is approximately February 20-21. These corrections are confined to the Notable Victim section and the timeline; all core campaign facts, financial figures, attacker wallets, technical infrastructure details, and SEAL findings are confirmed accurate.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}