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.
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443517197
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T22:09:34.747Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HgdkQpwX3CwuKYj3JRqCW9YY8FyKVg9S4GV37AY8NENs
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1442 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:09:34.608Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"75887401-75e8-4702-95f0-4eb72b395097","new_score":0,"page_slug":"tanstack-npm-supply-chain-attack-mini-shai-hulud-teampcp","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a real, well-documented May 2026 supply-chain attack on TanStack's npm packages by the TeamPCP/Mini Shai-Hulud campaign, using a GitHub Actions pull_request_target/cache-poisoning/OIDC-extraction chain — is corroborated by TanStack's own postmortem and numerous independent security outlets, and the page correctly and consistently frames TanStack's maintainers as victims rather than wrongdoers. The most significant issue found is a factual discrepancy in TeamPCP's stated origin date ('late 2024' vs. multiple threat-intel profiles placing it at late 2025), plus several instances where a cited source does not itself contain the specific claim attributed to it (the Unit 42 Vect-ransomware claim, and the SLSA-attestation claim as sourced to the TanStack postmortem/ReversingLabs), even though the underlying facts are independently true. A number of highly specific technical indicators (exact payload hash, obfuscation architecture, internal campaign string) could not be independently verified given available access.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}