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 · Rhea Finance Exploit (April 2026)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 12 → 12 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425403833
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T20:52:25.526Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- D57fuu3pHurbSB9s8mL3zH7Zc9LN4QpsWAhrV7kF18D9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1136 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-09T20:52:25.392Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"4a96af88-86dd-43ea-aa9a-acfba1b7ebc3","new_score":12,"page_slug":"rhea-finance-exploit-april-2026","prev_score":12,"reason":"The page is broadly accurate and well-sourced for a breaking DeFi exploit investigation. The core factual claims — exploit date, loss figures, attack mechanism, attacker wallet prefix, Tether freeze, and recovery amounts — are confirmed by multiple independent sources. The main inaccuracies are: (1) the KyberSwap comparison overstates both the loss amount (page says $54.7M, sources say ~$47-49M) and the similarity of the vulnerability class; (2) the Mango Markets loss figure is stated as $114M vs the widely-reported $116M; (3) the merger timeline date of March 1, 2025 is slightly off (source article is dated February 27, 2025); and (4) the 95% NEAR TVL claim lacks a directly supporting source. No claims are actively contradicted by more authoritative sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}