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 · Zcash Orchard Pool Counterfeiting Bug
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425419440
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T22:35:23.042Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2uN9cJzdf6PauZMsnBXjABRZNsTsSL16rSNqQkAa6Yy3
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1415 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T22:35:22.841Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"1d7658b7-0313-4731-ba92-f248c161629d","new_score":62,"page_slug":"zcash-orchard-pool-counterfeiting-bug","prev_score":62,"reason":"The review found zero disputed claims across 27 verified items, placing this page firmly in the 0-10% disputed band. All core facts — the vulnerability's technical nature, discovery timeline, block heights, fork activation times, personnel, and exploitation status — are confirmed by Tier 1 sources including the Zcash Foundation and official community forum (claim_findings[2], [3], [5], [6]). The four partially-supported findings are minor: a ~1.7% price-high discrepancy between sources (claim_findings[15]), a price-low figure that reflects different intraday data capture points rather than a factual error (claim_findings[16]), a marginally imprecise title for Arthur Hayes (claim_findings[18]), and the omission of one of two patched Zebra versions (claim_findings[9]). No link rot, no stale citations, and reviewer confidence of 0.88 support a clean approval. Coverage gaps — particularly the absent governance controversy and on-chain analysis — are noted for future expansion but do not call into question any published claim.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}