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 · July 2026 Bridge Hack Wave
- Sequence
- #7
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464263299
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T22:39:56.560Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T22:40:02.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T22:40:02.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7imC5ULhLnYQ2sx9xiEA1e5HD61ZvgFNewbKyw3TtWpN
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1634 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"da73cdcf670aaffadab3e75167aa93a0","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T22:39:56.181Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0833,"investigation_id":"3e006894-1e8f-4d75-9ffa-6a43c96da138","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"h2-2026-july-bridge-hack-wave-seven-attacks-m-lost","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 12 checked claims, none were disputed and one (claim_findings[4], the 'Hackers Day' label) could not be found in the cited CoinDesk article, giving about 8% disputed or unverifiable, within the approve band. The core facts were confirmed against Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources: the AFX amount, time and mechanism (claim_findings[2]), the Goldfeder statement (claim_findings[1]), the Verus repeat exploit (claim_findings[7]) and the Wanchain offer terms (claim_findings[10]). Four claims were only partially supported (AFX voting-unit figures, the three-failure-mode attribution, TeleSwap sourcing, and the Wanchain date and value range), but these are minor wording or sourcing issues. All three omissions are minor, the subject status does not contradict the page, and the open coverage gaps (post-July outcomes, primary sources) suggest expansion rather than denial. The reviewer's confidence was moderate and it did not check every claim on the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}