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 · Fake Hyperliquid App
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426251813
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T18:18:49.429Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DkcpcayfzcL5nfVBC9Am9mVDECdPFVNuFTz8qb2kd16k
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1287 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T18:18:49.198Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"a7376be0-6a6f-4bb8-99da-faa2ffb8facc","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fake-hyperliquid-app","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer evaluated 16 claims and found zero disputed. Eleven claims are fully confirmed by independent sources; three are partially supported with minor attribution gaps rather than contradictions. The core allegations — ZachXBT's November 7, 2025 warning, the Google Play fake app, Ethereum theft address 0x8c12C21C394D9174c3b1a086A97d2C5523ABb8F5, the $281,000 loss figure, and the Apple App Store variant — are all corroborated by multiple Tier 2 outlets. The partially-supported claims (claim_findings[1], claim_findings[7], claim_findings[13]) concern peripheral details: the 'Tvtion Inc.' developer name, fabricated review specifics, and a misattributed timeline citation. Two high-priority coverage gaps flag the absence of primary on-chain analysis and a direct link to the original Telegram post — these indicate room for expansion, not evidentiary failure. Reviewer confidence is 0.82, supporting a clear approval.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}