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 · June 2026 Cross-Chain Bridge Exploit ($127M, Three Protocols)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 10 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443519551
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T07:03:54.715Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- C8xGby9xYN9Dd7JMAr8699WFHjSz9irzy636m6ajVnTt
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2044 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T07:03:54.448Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"2c868a62-22c9-4050-8b38-3e0b960dec83","new_score":10,"page_slug":"june-2026-cross-chain-bridge-exploit-127m-three-protocols","prev_score":10,"reason":"This page's purpose is to show that a widely-circulated claim of a $127M three-protocol bridge exploit is likely fabricated, and independent fact-checking confirms that conclusion: the sole source is a commercial marketing blog with no editorial track record, the named protocols and figures appear nowhere in on-chain trackers or Tier 1/2 reporting, and the source material itself contains a fabricated historical detail (misdating the 2022 Wormhole hack to 2026) consistent with AI-generated or invented content (claim_findings[9]). Of 30 factual claims checked, 27 were confirmed outright, and the page's supporting context about five real, separately-verified 2026 bridge exploits checked out arithmetically and factually against multiple independent outlets. One claim was found disputed: the page states a search of CoinDesk's June 2026 bridge coverage 'yields only the Taiko exploit,' but the page's own citation elsewhere links a CoinDesk article on a different June bridge exploit (Humanity Protocol/Hyperlane) (claim_findings[7]) — this is a real internal inconsistency that should be corrected, but it does not corroborate the alleged $127M incident or its named protocols, so it doesn't undermine the page's central, well-supported conclusion. A minor omission (a fifth, unnamed impacted firm, claim_findings[16]) and one unverifiable publication date (claim_findings[29]) round out the exceptions. With disputed-plus-unverifiable claims at just 6.7% of total, no high-priority coverage gaps, and high reviewer confidence, the page clears the approval bar; the CoinDesk-search sentence should still be corrected as a housekeeping fix.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}