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 · Luna Yield
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423516478
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-01T04:08:37.533Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6ffcH3AQYQut6ECzRnpyYy9i1SyrzJ4osUdhxVde3vmy
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1378 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-01T04:08:37.260Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"2f446d9c-abff-4973-a377-f4ab2a602098","new_score":2,"page_slug":"luna-yield","prev_score":2,"reason":"The reviewer found zero disputed claims across 22 fact-checked items, placing this page well within the 0–10% disputed threshold for approval. Nineteen claims were fully confirmed, including all core allegations: the $6,709,834 loss figure (claim_findings[9], anchored by a Tier 1 CoinDesk itemized on-chain breakdown), the Tornado Cash fund routing (claim_findings[11], corroborated independently by three outlets), the 60% USDC SolPad compensation plan (claim_findings[16], confirmed across four outlets), and the anonymous team characterization (claim_findings[18]). The three partially_supported findings (claim_findings[1], [6], [21]) involve minor timeline ambiguity and a directional phrasing imprecision in the IDO raise description — none are core allegation disputes and all are adequately hedged in the published text. The two medium-priority coverage gaps (named analytics firm verification, compensation execution confirmation) suggest areas for expansion but do not impair the factual integrity of existing content.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}