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 · Radiant V2
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 54 → 54 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464298857
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:46:35.753Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:46:55.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:46:55.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5RDDHzfv1gfmmuhX8Pz4VQTppDqBZNq9G6t8vs1RqdZ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1927 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"30b72a3838576f6d81773288fb7e1de5","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:46:35.526Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1429,"investigation_id":"7d00d907-ddca-4513-9bdc-f3e52a5766e5","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":54,"page_slug":"radiant-v2","prev_score":54,"reason":"The core incident facts hold up: the October 2024 multisig compromise, the 3-of-11 threshold, the chains affected, the January 2024 exploit and the December 2024 attribution to UNC4736 were confirmed (claim_findings[0], [1], [4]). Of the 7 claims that could be checked, 1 could not be verified (the Tornado Cash deposit, claim_findings[7]), which is about 14% and would normally mean minor issues; one more unverifiable claim was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer. However, the page omits that the Radiant DAO announced a wind-down on June 1, 2026 (omission_findings[0], subject_status), which makes the 'normal operations resumed' and 'as of 2026' wording stale (claim_findings[5], [6]). Because this is a critical omission about the subject's current status, the verdict is revised more heavily than the percentage alone implies.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The review reports a critical omission (omission_findings[0]) and subject_status.contradicts_page is true: the Radiant DAO announced a wind-down on June 1, 2026 and the page never mentions it. The claim percentage alone (about 14%, minor band) understates this, so the page is judged under the significant band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}