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 · Blast
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 38 → 38 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514642
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:06.762Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9g94m84DxnQD7nmjStDj99SJPkx6JpVoSnyGN6s9yhKQ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2041 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:06.706Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"560b8bb5-e53f-4bfe-80cd-1be3295b8d79","new_score":38,"page_slug":"blast","prev_score":38,"reason":"Blue-chip calibration review (Prompt A). Verdict: over-penalized. Page content is treated as accurate; the trust_score band is miscalibrated. Blast is a legitimate but troubled Ethereum Layer 2. Its founder (Tieshun Roquerre/\"Pacman\") is publicly identified, credentialed (MIT, Y Combinator, Thiel Fellow), and previously exited Namebase and built the Blur NFT marketplace — both backed by reputable VCs including Paradigm. Paradigm itself funded Blast's $20M raise. The page's own text confirms zero regulatory actions from SEC/CFTC/DOJ. The incidents driving the current WARNING score are almost entirely attributable to third-party projects abusing the chain: RiskOnBlast was an independent team's rug pull, Super Sushi Samurai was a third-party game with a smart contract bug (resolved by white-hat), Munchables was a third-party NFT game that hired a North Korean developer (funds fully returned), and Leaper Finance was a documented serial fraud syndicate operating across multiple chains including Base, Arbitrum, and Solana — not a Blast-specific failure. Genuine concerns exist: the 3-of-5 multisig with zero upgrade delay, absent fraud proofs (confirmed by L2BEAT at below Stage 0), the controversial pre-launch withdrawal lock, and the 97% TVL collapse reflecting ecosystem abandonment. These warrant CAUTIONARY (50-69) — a legitimate protocol with material centralization and security caveats — not WARNING, which implies elevated fraud or unresolved severe incidents attributable to the entity itself. A score of 55 reflects meaningful infrastructure risk and the pre-launch lock controversy while correctly distinguishing Blast from the third-party scams that populated its ecosystem.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}