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.

Decision
review · USDS
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#4
Score
55 → 55 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
457909438
Off-chain at
2026-10-17T04:49:04.752Z
Anchored at
2026-10-17T04:49:06.153Z
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
4mQ23eDFe1JBMgGBAWZPhyEMfzUr6zuc44gbseHqKb8k
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1930 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"48997247ed578ac5a75c14f1c7567df6","decided_at":"2026-10-17T04:49:04.587Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1333,"findings_hash":"4DsbDwVLcC1swuUcZZ4HZLq8CHGBvRPAsVHNcqfjyosf","investigation_id":"8c9f63d8-429b-485d-a10b-9975e2ab32de","mode":"findings_only","new_score":55,"page_content_hash":"73058711dc20f6e68ffafbe3973480c5b8d14fffd0bd87241769fb8b23c06173","page_slug":"usds","prev_score":55,"reason":"Most of the page's factual claims about USDS's launch, token-conversion mechanics, the $756M EOA custody controversy, the freeze-function debate, the GENIUS Act, and the 2026 exchange delisting wave are well-supported by the cited sources and corroborated by independent reporting (Bloomberg, The Block, Decrypt, Cointelegraph, Reuters/Kitco). The page is also appropriately hedged where claims are protocol-self-reported or structural rather than realized risks. However, two related claims in the 'Endgame Restructuring' section are problematic: the characterization of a 2023 MKR governance 'approval' of the Endgame plan is only loosely supported (the page's own cited LBank source contradicts it, though an independent 2023 Constitution vote exists and could be cited more precisely), and more seriously, the sentence describing 'an earlier vote in which parts of the rebranding plan were rejected... before the Sky/USDS/SKY branding was ultimately adopted' inverts the actual event: the cited BeInCrypto article covers a November 2024 vote, after Sky had already launched, in which a proposal to revert back to MakerDAO was rejected (i.e., Sky was kept, not rejected), with concentrated 'whale' voting power drawing centralization criticism. This should be corrected. No accepted community submissions exist to independently evaluate.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}