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 · CarbonVote Token
- Sequence
- #1
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 419382390
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-13T02:43:20.209Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4VAxL4vjJGJo1jnuWNXVJNCf545WVAm9KvhUTExEgZP4
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1209 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-05-13T02:43:20.043Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"cf85373b-cb36-442c-afb1-d11ef6759762","new_score":0,"page_slug":"carbonvote-token","prev_score":0,"reason":"The CarbonVote Token investigation page is well-sourced and largely accurate on all major factual claims. The core narrative — CVT deployment on March 12, 750M supply, Raydium wash trading, durable nonce governance compromise, April 1 exploit execution, DPRK attribution, and recovery framework — is confirmed across multiple tier-1 and tier-2 sources. The most significant factual error is the claim of '26 asset types' stolen; the Drift official source shows 19, and Chainalysis reports 'at least 18.' Minor issues include an overstated confidence level for attribution (page says 'medium confidence' citing The Hacker News, but Drift's own post-mortem uses 'medium-high confidence'), slight paraphrase-as-direct-quote issues with BlockSec and Hypernative, and one unverified quote attributed to Drift's post-mortem that does not appear in the cited source.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}