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.
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 30 → 30 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443511646
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T03:56:26.955Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DTAwTknAJcxY6b5ZRsNxn4HxJgxuJEQ5xaPm1w7UJPda
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1272 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:56:26.667Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"c4c14081-8d50-49af-8b76-783b23252d59","new_score":30,"page_slug":"b-network-bsquared-bitcoin-layer-2-staking-contract-exploit","prev_score":30,"reason":"The great majority of factual claims on this page are well supported by the outlets cited, and the page shows unusually careful sourcing discipline — it explicitly flags single-source attributions, notes disagreement between its own cited outlets on dollar figures, and hedges unconfirmed negatives appropriately. The main soft spots are: the 'privileged access since 2025' root-cause narrative resting on one Tier 2 outlet while a co-cited outlet calls the mechanism unconfirmed; a 15% price-decline figure attributed to two outlets when only one of them was found to state that number; the drained-supply percentage being calculated against max supply (4.1%) rather than the more materially relevant circulating supply (~12.7%); and omission of the fact that the concurrent Verus bridge exploit was a recurrence of a known May 2026 vulnerability rather than a novel incident.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}