Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
#3
Score
52 → 52 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443511328
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T03:27:38.805Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
6AUSQqLDZiQNDjQHb2uTFNkz4JEnGvLgbpoKD3xoopL4
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1657 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:27:38.533Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"81428e11-1d41-4a04-9369-d9826a55dfe9","new_score":52,"page_slug":"btcpay-server-lnd-macaroon-credential-exploit-august-2026","prev_score":52,"reason":"The review found no disputed, stale, or unverifiable claims across all 24 checked items (disputed_pct 0%). The core factual record -- the pre-authentication macaroon-theft mechanism, the affected version range, the correct absence of a CVE, the identities of the two named victims, the patch details, and the 3 BTC recovery bounty -- was independently corroborated against BTCPay Server's own advisory and multiple independent outlets (claim_findings[1], [7], [8], [9], [11], [12], [17]). Only two minor items were rated partially_supported: an approximate 'thousands of merchants' figure and the exact day of an August 2017 founding date (claim_findings[19], [22]) -- both directionally correct with only the precise wording unsourced, not materially misleading. The reviewer flagged one high-priority coverage gap around on-chain forensic tracing of the stolen funds, but noted this likely reflects that no such analysis has been publicly published yet rather than an omission of available facts (coverage_gaps[1]) -- it points to a future expansion opportunity, not a defect in what the page currently asserts. Given zero disputed claims, no link rot, and reasonably high reviewer confidence (0.82), this page holds up and does not warrant a score penalty.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}