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 · LayerZero
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 52 (+14)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514790
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:14.211Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- H1mxHBoHcMRpXseBoP1MxBFHxJMuCJ3uTdFu2mNRhzqM
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1491 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:14.093Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"ac519952-403c-434a-97fb-c421abbef480","new_score":52,"page_slug":"layerzero","prev_score":38,"reason":"The reviewer (confidence 0.88) found 0% disputed claims across all six claim_findings — every factual assertion on the page is supported by Tier 1 sources including CoinDesk, The Block, and Chainalysis. The calibration dispute is not about content accuracy but about band placement: the current score of 38 (WARNING) conflates a negligence-enabled hack victim with a fraudulent actor. claim_findings[1] confirms the $292M KelpDAO exploit was executed by North Korea's Lazarus Group (TraderTraitor) via social engineering — a state-sponsored attack suffered by LayerZero's ecosystem, not fraud perpetrated by LayerZero itself. claim_findings[2] and claim_findings[3] establish that LayerZero bears partial governance responsibility (approving 1-of-1 DVN configurations, rejecting a relevant bug bounty report, initial blame-shifting) and has no regulatory enforcement actions, placing it squarely in the CAUTIONARY band (50–69) rather than WARNING. A positive delta of +14 moves the score from 38 to 52, the reviewer's recommended figure, which correctly reflects material security governance failures without equating negligence with fraud.","score_delta":14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}