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_revise · Bedrock Protocol
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 48 → 41 (-7)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425182128
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-08T20:21:44.804Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8gH7W3H4DP3AxKrb1faQ7HDTdstqcEXqkSqnvBKwhvD9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1420 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-08T20:21:44.520Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"115a5a12-8658-46ed-a28a-82a146c39d24","new_score":41,"page_slug":"bedrock-protocol","prev_score":48,"reason":"24 of 29 claims were fully confirmed across independent sources; zero claims were outright disputed. The three partially_supported findings are modest in severity: claim_findings[6] conflates the uniBTC Ethereum vault's $75M market cap with the full protocol TVL of approximately $229–240M, which is a meaningful numeric inaccuracy in a contextual statistic; claim_findings[11] references a specific code snippet that could not be independently retrieved from the primary source, though the underlying root cause is confirmed; and claim_findings[18] mislabels the on-chain job outreach as a 'security consultant' offer rather than a 'white hat' invitation. Two link-rot issues were identified on non-critical citations — the CoinTelegraph job-offer URL (404) and the ffnews.com launch article — both with confirmed mirrors. Three high-priority coverage gaps around on-chain fund recovery, user reimbursement confirmation, and independent legal verification of the Fuzzland insider allegations are noted but indicate areas for expansion rather than factual errors.","score_delta":-7,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}