---
# System prepended metadata

title: POB $HASH Historians DAO - Verdict Handbook

---

# POB $HASH Historians DAO - Verdict Handbook

## Overall goal of the verification process
The Historians DAO is tasked with evaluating the truth of claims about HASH TXs contained in owner-written titles and descriptions, and in publishing verdicts that provide sufficient information and context for a non-technical reader to be able to understand the historical significance of the HASH TX.

## Necessity of accuracy, consistency and clarity
Anyone can claim anything on the internet. Many of those claims are wrong. The Historians DAO must build and maintain a reputation for accuracy, consistency and clarity in its verdicts. Failure to maintain that reputation weakens the $HASH project's value as a source for reliable historical context and will lead to conflicts and accusations of unfairness.

We should expect that readers of our verdicts will rely on them, including as to whether to purchase a particular $HASH on a secondary market. We should apply the precautionary principle that it's better to decline verification than to publish a misleading or incorrect verification.

## Overview of the research process
1. Break down the title and description into distinct, verifiable claims
    * Example: "Mark Cuban's first DeFi transaction" -> Mark Cuban controls the wallet that sent this transaction AND This is an interaction with a DeFi protocol smart contract AND This is the earliest DeFi interaction in the wallets that we were able to determine Mark Cuban has control over
1. Separate out those claims that can be entirely verified on-chain from those that require off-chain research
    * In the Mark Cuban example above, the second claim can be verified on-chain but the first and third claims require off-chain research
1. For off-chain research, look first for primary sources like the person/account tweeting/blogging about their own TX or protocol docs sites. Then search for media articles and second hand tweet threads explaining what the author believes occurred.
2. Apply a protective mentality
    * We should prioritize the interests of the audience for our verdicts - potential purchasers and students of Ethereum history - over the interests of the $HASH owners seeking verification
    * Can the title or description be interpreted in multiple ways? Can we clarify how it should be understood by asking the owner to revise the language?
    * Is it possible that someone is trying to launder a false or misleading claim through the Historians DAO to unduly boost the $HASH's value?
1. For important claims, leverage the power of the historians
* Some claims will involve very significant historical events (e.g. the first TX on Ethereum) and may pose a risk of multiple claimants and high stakes for accuarcy. When you encounter one of these "whale claims," you should flag it for the historians and begin a discussion about how to proceed.  

    
## Types of verifiable claims
### Genesis claims
These include the creation of a protocol governance token like YFI. Keep in mind that sometimes tokens are released well after the protocol is live (e.g. UNI, TORN) - in those cases make it clear that the TX is the genesis of the governance token and not the protocol itself.

Some smart contract deployments may be considered "genesis" events if they contain the core logic associated with the protocol. So for instance an NFT minting contract may be that NFT project's genesis even before there were any mints. Most DeFi protocols are built on a number of interacting contracts (see [MakerDAO's smart contract modules](https://docs.makerdao.com/)), and so we should avoid verifying a genesis claim on just one of these pieces of the whole. 
### First in time claims
Claims of firsts within an EOA (e.g. vitalik.eth) or a particular smart contract (e.g. CryptoPunks) require you to search in a block explorer from the earliest TXs to confirm that there was no earlier TX with the same claim. Sometimes this is quite easy while for popular smart contracts, it can be more difficult due to the number of TXs.
* TIP: Etherscan recently added the "Method" field to its transaction viewer, which allows you to see the name of the function called, such as "Mint" or "Transfer." This can be a helpful way to visually filter the types of TX you are checking. 
* TIP: Etherscan limits historical TXs for an address, including smart contracts, to the most recent 100,000 TXs (see [Etherscan ETH2 Deposit Contract](https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x00000000219ab540356cbb839cbe05303d7705fa). [Ethplorer](https://ethplorer.io/address/0x00000000219ab540356cbb839cbe05303d7705fa#ready) does not have this cut off, so refer to it when you need to research beyond the most recent 100k TXs. 

### Largest/highest value superlative claims
This category of claims is notable because they can be overtaken after the verification occurs, so it is important to include "As of [today's date]" at the beginning of a superlative verdict.
Because it can be onerous to search through all similar TX to make an independent verification of the claim, you should alwsys try to include a secondary source like a news article for these types of claims.

### Famous person's address claims
Do not assume the claim about who sent the transaction or who controls a particular address is correct. ENS names can be registered by anyone and crypto is rife with spoofing-based scams. It's best to find and cite the famous person claiming the address or some particular TX from the address (e.g. Mark Cuban tweeting about minting a particular NFT is sufficient to link him to the minting address).

When writing a verdict about a famous person's first-in-time or superlative TX, note which addresses you have queried.

* CAUTION: Hype seeking projects often send their ERC20 tokens or NFTs to famous addresses to make it seem as if the influential person chose to acquire their token (see [Vitalik's incoming ERC721s](https://etherscan.io/address/0xd8da6bf26964af9d7eed9e03e53415d37aa96045#tokentxnsErc721)). Look for the famous person to have initiated the acquisition TX by interacting with the smart contract and paying the gas.

Places to check to link an address to a person:
* Twitter (including in the person's bio)
* Personal blogs
* Gitcoin profile
* Proof of Humanity
* Protocol multisig member announcements
* News article (less reliable as sole source)
* ENS (seek to verify with additional source)

### Hack/exploit claims
This is an instance where historians should search first for off-chain sources announcing or explaining hacks or exploits, and try to find a trustworthy source explaining what happened and which transactions were involved. It's common that hacks and exploits involve several relevant transactions, include some innocent-by-themselves set up TXs (e.g. attacker deposits into a pool that they later drain), and many hacks/exploits occur over multiple repeat TXs. 

* TIP: Etherscan has added labels identifying certain attacker accounts (e.g. [bZx Exploiter](https://etherscan.io/address/0x148426fdc4c8a51b96b4bed827907b5fa6491ad0). It also has labels for [Phish / Hacks](https://etherscan.io/accounts/label/phish-hack), [Heists](https://etherscan.io/accounts/label/heist) and [Exploits](https://etherscan.io/txs/label/exploit).

Historians writing these verdicts should educate themselves about how the exploit was accomplished and determine which TXs involved loss of funds. 

* CAUTION: Avoid verifying claims that suggest the $HASH TX constitutes the entirety of the hack/exploit, especially if it was only a set up TX by the attacker. Avoid verifying claims suggesting that a one of many draining TX was the only draining TX (e.g. "TheDAO gets drained of $11.5M" for one draining TX among dozens)

Sources to check:
* Post-mortems written by the affected protocol team
* [rekt.news](https://www.rekt.news/)
* Detailed explanations published by security researchers
* Tweet threads written by trustworthy community members explaining the hack/exploit
* Media articles explaining the hack to a lay audience

## How to write a verdict
### Primary goal: to provide sufficient information and context for a non-technical reader to be able to understand the basis for verifying the $HASH's claims and, optionally, the historical significance of the HASH TX
### Secondary goal: write a verdict that fellow historians will be able to quickly confirm and upvote

### Format
1. Objective description of the state transition caused by the transaction
2. Verification of each distinct claim contained in the title and description
3. [Optional] Additional facts that help place the TX in its proper historical context
4. [Optional] Links to helpful/explanatory sources

### Style and grammar guide
* Lead with the primary on-chain action of the transaction - transfer, mint, deposit, exploit, etc.
* Avoid using imprecise, subjective or ambiguous terms like:
    * huge/ultimate
    * most-significant/game-changing/transformative
* Separately verify each claim
* Avoid using non-commital terms like "seems to be" unless you have a good reason for why you can't be certain, and in that case explain your reasoning
* Include any necessary disclaimers about addresses searched or the date of the verdict
* Use [markdown for links](https://anvilproject.org/guides/content/creating-links)
* Add helpful/explanatory links at the bottom of the verdict


### Specific guidelines
* For claims that cannot be verified entirely on-chain, historians should try to identify an article or post that confirms certain details of the claim and adds context
    * Crypto-native publications like [The Defiant](https://thedefiant.io/) and [CoinTelegraph](https://cointelegraph.com/) tend to have more accurate context than traditional media sources

    * Don't use multiple sources except when they speak to different readers (i.e., could link to both a CoinTelegraph article for general crypto users and a security firm's debrief post for technical readers)
 
* Claims involving a project or protocol's core logic or genesis should link to the main relevant UI or to an official explanatory page (e.g. DAI genesis should link to https://makerdao.com/en/)
* Claims involving the minting of specific NFTs should link to an image of the NFT on the source publisher's site (i.e. a CryptoPunk mint TX should link to the punk profile on Larva Labs, not a secondary market)
* Claims involving the transfer or sale of a specific NFT should link to a URL on the platform used for the transaction (e.g. OpenSea's BAYC page for a transfer claim on that platform)
* Claims involving a famous person's address should link to a source for that person's ownership of the address
    * Best is the famous person claiming it via twitter or other primary source
    * Do not rely on ENS names - anyone can register any name and many famous names are not owned by the famous person 

## How to review and vote on a verdict
Well-written verdicts should be easy and quick to confirm.
1. Read the title and description and determine what claims are being asserted 
2. Review the $HASH TX on a block explorer
3. Read the verdict and click and review the links therein
4. If you believe there is still some ambiguity about certain claims, share your thoughts in the #historians-private channel
5. If you feel comfortable relying on the verdict, upvote it

## Specific NFT Project Intel

### CryptoPunks
The [original contract](https://etherscan.io/address/0x6ba6f2207e343923ba692e5cae646fb0f566db8d) was deployed June 9, 2017. Users could obtain them by calling the getPunk() function. Due to some problem with the original contract, Larva Labs deployed a [new contract](https://etherscan.io/address/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865de6e193bbb) on June 22, 2017 that remains the canonical contract today. LarvaLabs batch upgraded existing CryptoPunk owners to the new contract through a number of setInitialOwners() transactions. 

On LarvaLabs' site, the earliest transaction for each Punk is a "Claimed" entry that links to the relevant Etherscan setInitialOwners() transaction taht included the punk on the new contract.