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 · Ambient Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 42 → 42 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443508504
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-18T17:40:35.217Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- JfFJ6BukVUeztFeFhc122LmWrYEUrVJi6fyJjMz3Peu
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1160 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-18T17:40:35.108Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"da19cc17-dd96-47a4-a5de-9fd11102f484","new_score":42,"page_slug":"ambient","prev_score":42,"reason":"The core narrative — CrocSwap/Crocodile Labs lineage, the July 2023 BlockTower-led seed round, and the October 2024 DNS-hijack/Inferno Drainer incident with full ETH reimbursement of victims — is well corroborated by multiple independent sources, including a tier-1 outlet. Two defects stand out: the unsourced claim that 'ZachXBT has flagged this entity' could not be corroborated anywhere and reads as an uncited reputational assertion, and the page omits a materially relevant June 2026 smart-contract exploit (~$110.6K) that, unlike the 2024 incident, did hit the protocol's own contract code — this is incriminating information the page should but does not disclose. Section-level content in the reviewed snapshot is entirely blank, limiting how much of the page could be checked beyond the summary and timeline.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}