Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Zoth Protocol
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#7
Score
88 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
424135747
Off-chain at
2026-06-04T00:32:18.574Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
7NZnT795Z4EfJVARh22bFry3fQkNaJYj7AAVtvChnK3H
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1310 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T00:32:18.346Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"4a736de8-81d9-4b63-944d-32ddd8b0ff17","new_score":8,"page_slug":"zoth-protocol","prev_score":8,"reason":"The reviewer found zero disputed claims across 22 checked items, with all core allegations — exploit amounts, wallet addresses, timestamps, attack mechanics, and incident response actions — confirmed by multiple independent Tier 2 security sources including Halborn, Blockscope, QuillAudits, and Rekt News. The five partially-supported findings (claim_findings[8], [13], [14], [16], [21]) reflect minor phrasing imprecision and a timeline conflation around the Bolts Capital announcement, not material falsehoods. The two unverifiable claims (claim_findings[9] and [18]) concern peripheral background detail and an unconfirmed prior-audit assertion; no source actively contradicts them, but the audit-flagging claim in sections[1] should be qualified. Two high-priority coverage gaps exist around current attacker wallet status and audit history, but these represent expansion opportunities per review policy rather than factual failures in the current text.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}