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 · Trezor (ShipMonk Data Breach)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 58 → 58 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562281
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:41:53.998Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Bdkegq144QxhJu8eM4snPX3LzfdBrrQQ4ANHSmQrgwUj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1146 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"fd5f49135da0f19be02399bf0676eee2","decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:41:53.904Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1538,"investigation_id":"1fc16760-3a5f-4e12-910e-b7f5ad1e3754","new_score":58,"page_slug":"trezor-shipmonk-data-breach","prev_score":58,"reason":"The core factual narrative of the breach -- dates, customer counts, exposure categories, countries, the Metabase SQL-injection vector, and the 2024 breach history -- is well-supported by the official Trezor disclosure and corroborating independent press. Two statistics stand out as problematic: an unattributed '4,309 of ~11,000' unpatched-instance figure that doesn't appear in either cited source and conflicts with a different figure in a third cited source, and a '2025: $41M/72 incidents' comparison figure that the page attributes to Chainalysis but which actually originates from a different firm (CertiK) with incompatible methodology, misrepresenting it as part of a continuous same-source trend.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}