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 · Fluid (Instadapp)
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 58 → 58 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457793290
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T21:49:50.753Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T21:50:12.469Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BuNAUPBYS6YStWm3iTXbujUYQcuuW9pHJdRayCgR5Mz5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1663 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"3a7a04fc16769dd5072a65e411bf510a","decided_at":"2026-10-16T21:49:50.527Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.3333,"findings_hash":"2mNXFVpSv6nEfYbQUXLyH7x3FNV1Ehznv3qXsqNxmnip","investigation_id":"e2cde9dd-d0ba-45e1-8daa-fb77b6e8957e","mode":"findings_only","new_score":58,"page_content_hash":"eea63e47bb6ce14782458dd46c14498b2d18216c38a968a4162615a3270466b5","page_slug":"fluid-instadapp","prev_score":58,"reason":"The page's two headline 2026 incidents (the May Merkle key compromise and the March Resolv bad-debt event) are well supported by their cited sources on the core facts — exploit dates, token/dollar amounts, the attacker wallet address, the bad-debt settlement split, and the disclosure-delay controversy all check out against primary and independent reporting. The clearest defect is a repeated, verifiable overstatement of Instadapp's total funding raised ($24.5 million claimed vs. ~$12.4 million in actual seed + Series A records), which recurs in three places (Protocol Overview, Token Performance, and the 2021 timeline entry) and should be treated as one correction applied three times. A secondary, smaller issue is that the $215,000 USD loss figure, while independently accurate, is not actually supported by any of the three sources the page cites for that claim. The page omits Fluid's apparent Solana/BNB Chain footprint and has no regulatory-history or governance-structure coverage, which are reasonable gaps to flag for a risk-intelligence audience.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}