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 · Platypus Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 49 → 49 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464380486
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:38:07.315Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:38:29.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:38:29.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2eWpuPeNiy7JH6QpBrLFUQGzpt7tNjPaahMQ4kMg3n7g
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1391 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"418902f9286d0265433a430ac6d24de4","decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:38:07.267Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.25,"findings_hash":"D3ojFkAGKNk2XJzjN7rUnC8crBb9pb5c7AyNrmpAdPRx","investigation_id":"26ccbf94-f508-49e9-9bb5-6f7863aab154","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":49,"omissions":{"material":0,"total":1},"page_content_hash":"f5107f0291eff460f0b5d48dc57a70c9bca2e3212cf1dbf10cfdd3f5afb617e0","page_slug":"platypus-finance","prev_score":49,"reason":"The core narrative holds: three 2023 exploits, the Feb 16 emergencyWithdraw flaw, the Paris acquittal and the ethical-hacker defence. The summary has two numeric errors: the combined loss ($11.75M against about $10.8-11.4M from the page's own figures) and a TVL peak and floor ($200M and $100K) that contradict the body ($1.2B and $55K). Several details (five-year sentence request, broad legal holding, October loss of $2.2M vs $1.6M) are weakly sourced or conflicting. TVL data is dated. The review checked a limited sample of sources.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}