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_approve · Blast
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 55 (+17)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514645
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:06.825Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3oojnxGSkwbhr6F8GgKrof46uabmCDucUjADTtUty1ga
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1565 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:06.706Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"560b8bb5-e53f-4bfe-80cd-1be3295b8d79","new_score":55,"page_slug":"blast","prev_score":38,"reason":"The calibration review found 0% disputed claims across all 6 claim findings — every substantive assertion about Blast's legitimacy, founder credentials, incident attribution, and regulatory status was supported by Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. The current WARNING-band score of 38 is over-penalized because the scoring treated third-party ecosystem incidents (RiskOnBlast rug pull, Munchables $62.5M exploit with full recovery, Super Sushi Samurai white-hat resolution, Leaper Finance serial fraud) as protocol-attributable failures rather than third-party abuse on a legitimate chain. claim_findings[2] through [4] confirm all three major loss events involved independent teams, and funds were substantially recovered. claim_findings[5] confirms that genuine centralization risks exist — 3-of-5 multisig with zero upgrade delay, no fraud proofs, L2BEAT below Stage 0 — which appropriately justify CAUTIONARY (50–69) rather than clearing to a higher band. A score of 55 correctly reflects material infrastructure immaturity and the pre-launch withdrawal lock controversy while distinguishing Blast from the third-party scams that populated its ecosystem. Reviewer confidence of 0.82 supports a decisive upward correction.","score_delta":17,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}