Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Lava
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
54 → 54 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
466747522
Off-chain at
2026-11-08T02:29:06.231Z
Anchored at
2026-11-08T02:29:26.000Z
Block time
2026-11-08T02:29:26.000Z

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
F6YUBYxXMVYbd2MpmQmqbusaakS22pTUvJFhWhTizBph
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1431 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"fe8a05c00af2ea77b6711c47b83643f5","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-08T02:29:06.186Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.5714,"findings_hash":"7FKMtxBw1WazdyiHgR5koUHimwyAHXsV9ptPX52DwMnf","investigation_id":"2739097c-d622-4726-906c-3e73e85e4f48","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":54,"omissions":{"material":1,"total":1},"page_content_hash":"31e542ad04901eec3e27384bf30ea3393dcb046b1f54c85806cf887326496039","page_slug":"lava","prev_score":54,"reason":"The March 2024 exploit ($340,000, flash loan, PeckShield report, 90% offer, Insurance Fund) and the lava.xyz custody controversy are supported by what I could reach. The second 2024 exploit ($130,000) and the combined $470,000 figure have no corroboration, and DefiLlama shows only one incident. The ZachXBT flag is admitted unverified yet stated as fact in the summary. The liquidation-engine cause appears wrong. The page also misses that the protocol is listed as deprecated. The identity link between the exploited Lava and lavadefi.io is uncertain.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":3,"subject_status":"unknown","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}