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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426522797
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-15T00:11:59.830Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9wHYXvJvAKB8qgeQopxQUxvbZsZpDvNq2hqfoeMVxQHj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1285 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-15T00:11:59.657Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"21f8cdaa-79af-44fa-aed9-9888ad52e83e","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fake-metamask-update-phishing-campaign-may-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a late-May 2026 MetaMask impersonation phishing campaign using Permit2 drain mechanics, attributed via ZachXBT to a drainer-as-a-service operation with $9M+ losses — is well-supported by its primary cited sources, which exist and say what the page claims. The most significant finding is that quarklab.cc, cited twice as a 'research' source, is itself a commercial wallet drainer criminal service and should be removed. Minor inaccuracies include the Scam Sniffer dollar figure ($83.3M stated vs. $83.85M actual), the March 9 SANS campaign date being the Paubox publication date rather than the SANS identification date, and '23pds' being titled CISO rather than 'chief security officer'. No claims were found to be directly disputed by credible counter-sources; the main reliability limitation is the absence of independent Tier 1 verification for the financial loss figures.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}