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 · Loopscale
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 38 → 38 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423162028
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-30T13:03:59.192Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AZnXdBHzkRtRAtGiygdnV1f6J26BVHoQWfBqR8yjiAr8
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (887 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-05-30T13:03:59.091Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"baaab0fc-d2b6-4bba-966e-df154087f643","new_score":38,"page_slug":"loopscale","prev_score":38,"reason":"The Loopscale investigation page is well-supported in its core factual claims: the exploit date, amounts, mechanism, and recovery are all corroborated by multiple credible sources including the primary OShield audit report and major crypto news outlets. Minor issues include the omission of Jump Capital from the backer list, ambiguity around whether the audit issue was 'inadequately remediated' vs 'not covering this specific flaw,' and an unverifiable May 1 operations-resumption date that may be inaccurate based on the embedded tweet ID.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}