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 · Alephium
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 53 → 53 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457549683
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T07:12:39.735Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T07:12:50.891Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FENkC3ivfwGEgBApT6YqPir8BDx26qPz9ksnp7Yp1S4a
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2090 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"0d4a3ad70d72d34732393752399a2ca8","decided_at":"2026-10-16T07:12:39.550Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2,"findings_hash":"saJ9nwyzonYY168Hg5iiCDh1CdWPKofanZEAjypdbRy","investigation_id":"70a2e4e0-fb4c-405d-a273-42da16a1507b","mode":"findings_only","new_score":53,"page_content_hash":"3dab712c66df0dbdda203d8ebcc30358e0edf87399d531c94d2e02df26b0bdf9","page_slug":"alephium","prev_score":53,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a May 30, 2026 TokenBridge exploit via a forged-message/off-chain backend vulnerability rather than stolen guardian keys, followed by a partial burn and compensation commitment — is well supported by contemporaneous reporting and, on the root-cause point, by Alephium's own later postmortem. However, the page's single most prominent and most frequently repeated figure — the $815,000 total loss, which appears in the summary, a section heading, two section bodies, and the timeline — is contradicted by Alephium's own official postmortem (published Sept 4, 2026, after every article currently cited), which states the actual collateral withdrawn was approximately $305,000. The page also contains an internal contradiction about whether guardian keys were compromised (one sentence says they were 'leveraged,' directly conflicting with the surrounding text and the official postmortem's explicit denial), and a double-counting error in the wALPH-sold-on-Uniswap figures that conflicts with the page's own later section. A stale claim about a 1-billion-ALPH maximum supply ignores the July 2025 Danube upgrade that removed the cap over a year before the page's 'as of June 2026' reference point. Founder biography details (EPFL, PhD) are unsupported by the cited source. None of these issues are evidence of bad faith; they read as artifacts of relying on early breaking-news coverage without reconciling it against the subject's own later, more authoritative disclosures.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}