Audit log

Every state-changing event for Playsomo: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-25 23:06:14Z
   Score: 60 → 60 (no score change)
   The page's core factual claims — the Animoca/SOMO acquisition and the Taj Tarsha/Few and Far indictment — are well-corroborated by independent primary and secondary sources, and the page is unusually careful to separate the confirmed Tarsha indictment (which does not name Playsomo anywhere) from a single unverified social-media allegation connecting the two, which it explicitly labels low-confidence. Two minor factual imprecisions were found (an ambiguous FAR token 'launch' framing and a one-day discrepancy in Tarsha's bond-release date), and one real coverage gap exists around an undisclosed real-money-adjacent 'wager' feature on SOMO's own site that the page does not examine for licensing implications.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,518,408

   sig

   KYNNLKffJ2dz…mXcLL6Htcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   6eT4VyLSHzdJ…okQHmEpXcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1057 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T23:06:14.644Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"f9353971-d133-410f-8c63-66d8926378d6","new_score":60,"page_slug":"playsomo","prev_score":60,"reason":"The page's core factual claims — the Animoca/SOMO acquisition and the Taj Tarsha/Few and Far indictment — are well-corroborated by independent primary and secondary sources, and the page is unusually careful to separate the confirmed Tarsha indictment (which does not name Playsomo anywhere) from a single unverified social-media allegation connecting the two, which it explicitly labels low-confidence. Two minor factual imprecisions were found (an ambiguous FAR token 'launch' framing and a one-day discrepancy in Tarsha's bond-release date), and one real coverage gap exists around an undisclosed real-money-adjacent 'wager' feature on SOMO's own site that the page does not examine for licensing implications.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 73578fde-381d-4d93-bd97-0c28241d140bcopy
2. #2review approveby judgejudge

   2026-08-25 23:06:14Z
   Score: 60 → 60 (no score change)
   Of 15 factual claims checked, 12 were confirmed, 2 were partially supported on minor points, and only 1 could not be verified — none were disputed. That puts the disputed rate at 6.7%, well inside the approve range. The page's two central claims, the Animoca Brands acquisition and the Taj Tarsha/SDNY indictment (claim_findings[1], [8]), are both independently corroborated by primary sources. The one unresolved item, a pseudonymous social-media post alleging a link between Tarsha, Playsomo, and Animoca (claim_findings[2]), is handled correctly: the page presents it explicitly as an unsubstantiated, low-confidence allegation rather than fact, dedicates a section to explaining why it cannot be verified, and the independent reviewer likewise could not locate or confirm the underlying post. That is the responsible way to carry an unverified allegation about identifiable parties, and it does not count against the page. Two small date/framing imprecisions were found (claim_findings[13], the bond-release date off by one day) and do not rise to a level that changes the outcome.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,518,440

   sig

   51eKXdUNXAkm…yrjdweH1copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   4yV1yiCbKRvW…D8VCzaWQcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1434 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T23:06:14.644Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"f9353971-d133-410f-8c63-66d8926378d6","new_score":60,"page_slug":"playsomo","prev_score":60,"reason":"Of 15 factual claims checked, 12 were confirmed, 2 were partially supported on minor points, and only 1 could not be verified — none were disputed. That puts the disputed rate at 6.7%, well inside the approve range. The page's two central claims, the Animoca Brands acquisition and the Taj Tarsha/SDNY indictment (claim_findings[1], [8]), are both independently corroborated by primary sources. The one unresolved item, a pseudonymous social-media post alleging a link between Tarsha, Playsomo, and Animoca (claim_findings[2]), is handled correctly: the page presents it explicitly as an unsubstantiated, low-confidence allegation rather than fact, dedicates a section to explaining why it cannot be verified, and the independent reviewer likewise could not locate or confirm the underlying post. That is the responsible way to carry an unverified allegation about identifiable parties, and it does not count against the page. Two small date/framing imprecisions were found (claim_findings[13], the bond-release date off by one day) and do not rise to a level that changes the outcome.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 174eface-4337-4f9c-a60c-0cf3ac933100copy