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 · June 2026 Cross-Chain Bridge Exploit ($127M, Three Protocols)
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 8 → 8 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462279526
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-28T00:48:48.083Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-28T00:49:58.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-28T00:49:58.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8VAfBj6VDjgVu5KksvR2fPPeAAYpChHs8nccB729ewAj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1980 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fefcd9e37389e146bb094c30537e29e6","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-28T00:48:47.781Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"2c868a62-22c9-4050-8b38-3e0b960dec83","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":8,"page_slug":"june-2026-cross-chain-bridge-exploit-127m-three-protocols","prev_score":8,"reason":"Of 9 claim findings, 5 were confirmed, 4 were partially supported, and none were disputed or unverifiable, so the disputed share is 0%. The central framing holds: the Nadcab post exists, no independent coverage was found (claim_findings[0], [4]), and the Syscoin details match Rekt News exactly (claim_findings[6], [7]). The partial findings are real but limited. The Humanity Protocol mechanism and asset breakdown are not in the cited CoinDesk page (claim_findings[5]), the Nadcab 03:54 time is a detection time and not the end of the attack (claim_findings[1]), and the $42-47M total mixes minted-token value with real losses (claim_findings[8]). The page should be expanded to add the Nadcab FAQ contradictions noted in omission_findings[0].","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":6,"severity_override":{"applied":false,"band":null,"from_band":"approve","reason":"The one material omission (the Nadcab post's FAQ contradicts its own body on window, naming and vector) is further evidence for the page's own conclusion that the $127M claim is unverified and low-confidence, so leaving it out does not mislead readers about the central finding. The subject status does not contradict the page, and the Syscoin bridge pause is already stated as of June 15. The omission is better handled as an addition to the page than as a penalty."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}