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 · Zoth Protocol
- Sequence
- #7
- Score
- 8 → 8 (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}