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_revise · Cream Finance
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
12 → 0 (-12)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443515768
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T18:05:23.451Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
D1GvMhU4RydF5K3AzpMt1wSKUAeagbz1k6DfQMNnoZer
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2190 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T18:05:22.862Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"14c7a43c-cc9b-41a5-8640-2e93be161e60","new_score":0,"page_slug":"cream-finance","prev_score":12,"reason":"Applying the reviewer's own methodology to its full set of individually checked claims, about 22% came back disputed or unverifiable, which falls in the minor-to-moderate revision range rather than a pass or a failure. The most consequential problem is a recurring claim that the protocol has been effectively dormant since 2022 with its last significant commit in August 2023 (claim_findings[2], [39], [41], [47]); this appears across the page's summary, a full body section, and the timeline, and in every instance the reviewer found the project's own GitHub organization shows repository activity as recently as October 2025, directly contradicting it. Separately, a claim that 'the Iron Bank attempted to separate its identity from the Cream brand' is sourced to an article the reviewer fetched directly and confirmed does not mention the Iron Bank at all (claim_findings[42]) -- a sourcing failure regardless of whether the underlying claim happens to be true. Weighing in the page's favor, the reviewer specifically checked for conflation across the page's three distinct 2021 exploits and found none -- dates, mechanisms, and dollar figures were correctly matched to the right incident in nearly every case -- and the founder-controversy section covering the Huang/ZachXBT defamation suit and its retractions matched a directly-fetched primary source with precise, itemized accuracy. One financial figure (the August 2021 exploit's loss estimate) uses only the low end of a credible reported range, which understates rather than overstates the harm described. On balance, the page's core hack narrative and founder-controversy account hold up well, but the repeated and falsifiable dormancy claims and the mis-cited Iron Bank claim need to be corrected before the page's current framing of the protocol's current state can stand.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}