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_revise · Florence Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 50 → 50 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464293662
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:28:00.410Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:28:25.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:28:25.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9VAbgXSHcpWDK7HZWRjDoqyD4jYbzfbCZC941ZswS4tf
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1460 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"5e0ed88590b36dfcaef8cdc25a9b002c","band_override":null,"blocked_count":3,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:28:00.173Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2,"investigation_id":"1428949e-5480-4c98-b18e-b160d86fca1a","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":50,"page_slug":"florence-finance","prev_score":50,"reason":"Of 8 claims checked, 3 could not be read because the sources blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[2], [6], [7]); these are left out of the count. Of the remaining 5, one is disputed (claim_findings[0]: the STIP proposal was posted 2023-09-26, not October 2023), which gives 20% and the minor-issues band. The core incident, a roughly $1.45M address poisoning theft reported around Nov 30, 2023 with no acknowledgment as of Dec 4, is supported (claim_findings[1], [3]). The audit-disclosure statement is in tension with the Arbitrum proposal (claim_findings[5]), and the shutdown claim remains unconfirmed because the official site and DeFiLlama were unreadable. The penalty is kept at the mild end because reviewer confidence is low (0.4) and the disputed item is a minor date.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":5,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}