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_revise · Bent Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 18 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464357485
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T04:15:59.780Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T04:16:19.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T04:16:19.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5nUV453NjQ6zResMNGtLsAz3NdmdHw9oHxj7KegS2FYt
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1688 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fe622209fbd102ecc67c40fd8856b5d0","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T04:15:59.502Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"a55e587b-e7b5-423a-ac18-aba6c2e8355c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":18,"page_slug":"bent-finance","prev_score":28,"reason":"The core account of the December 2021 insider exploit (about 440 ETH, roughly $1.75M, a backdoor placed through the deployer key, and funds returned and users reimbursed) was confirmed by independent sources (claim_findings[0], [4], [5], [7]). Four of the 14 scoreable claims (about 29%) were disputed or could not be verified: a Halborn attribution the Halborn page does not support (claim_findings[1]), a secondary attacker address (claim_findings[3]), an unsourced audit claim (claim_findings[6]) and a timeline figure (claim_findings[13]). The 2026 price is also out of date, and every timeline entry lacks a source. One claim about DeFiLlama figures could not be checked because the site blocked access, so it was left out of the calculation. No shutdown, sanction or omission contradicts the page, and the reviewer's confidence was moderate, so the penalty stays at the lower end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-10,"score_limit":{"applied":-10,"limited":false,"proposed":-10,"rule":"second_opinion_agreed","second":-12},"scored_claims":14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}