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 · Binance Bridge
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464357938
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T04:17:34.181Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T04:17:56.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T04:17:56.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FqvuAa9QuVM1J8crfmazUDk8d4cTuLppnNASukKsXo7K
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1995 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"0b748ddf6a79a8aaba3eabf1f769c6b3","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T04:17:33.961Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.125,"investigation_id":"6ea1ef2c-9ad2-458f-9bb3-88ec2da9e58b","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"binance-bridge","prev_score":10,"reason":"The core account of the October 2022 exploit (forged IAVL proofs, about 2M BNB minted, chain halt, v1.1.15 hotfix) is consistent with the sources the reviewer could read (claim_findings[0], [6]). The page contradicts itself on the validator count (44 vs 21, claim_findings[3]), the Venus collateral (900,000 vs 630,240 BNB, claim_findings[1]) and the halt interval (90 minutes vs about 52 by its own timestamps, claim_findings[4]). The 'second only to Ronin' ranking and the Venus liquidation date are also questioned (claim_findings[2], [5]). The page omits the 2024 sunset of the BNB Beacon Chain bridge, a material omission with a high-priority coverage gap, and many per-transaction details were not checked against primary sources (claim_findings[7]).","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The percentage alone (1 of 8 claims unverifiable, 12.5%) implies the minor band. The review also reports a material omission and says the page contradicts the subject's current status: the BNB Beacon Chain, one end of the bridge, was sunset in 2024 and the page does not say so. Four further claims are only partially supported because the page contradicts itself. The penalty is kept at the low end of the band because the reviewer's confidence is 0.5 and the status finding rests on search snippets."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}