Contributor guide

Evidence is something a stranger can check without trusting you. The five kinds below are what a submission can be; within each, the difference between a submission that gets accepted and one that does not is almost always verifiability.

• Link / article

  Strong: A court filing, a regulator's notice, an exchange's own post-mortem, or reporting that names its sources.

  Weak: A screenshot of a screenshot, or an aggregator quoting an aggregator.

• Transaction hash

  Strong: A specific on-chain transaction plus its chain — anyone can verify it independently, and it cannot be edited later.

  Weak: A hash with no explanation of what it is meant to show.

• Wallet / contract address

  Strong: An address with a label saying whose it is and how you know — a team wallet named in a filing, a contract flagged by a scanner.

  Weak: An address asserted to belong to someone with nothing connecting them.

• Social account

  Strong: A platform and handle, ideally with an archived link, where the account is the claim (an impersonation, a deleted promise).

  Weak: An account you dislike the opinions of.

• Free-form claim

  Strong: Context that ties other evidence together, when you have no single artifact for it.

  Weak: An unsupported assertion. This kind carries the least weight by design — corroborate it.

Links are archived to the Wayback Machine where possible, so evidence survives the page being taken down.

Every submission is marked incriminating, exonerating or neutral, and all three are wanted. A repaid treasury, a dismissed case, an audit that came back clean — these move a trust score upward, and a record that can only ever move one direction is not a record, it is a campaign.

Some evidence points neither way, or could honestly be read either way. Mark it neutral: it goes on the record next to the rest and reviewers see it, but it does not move the trust score on its own.

If you are the subject of a page and have evidence it is wrong, this is the route: submit the evidence. Every investigation page also carries a “request a fact-check” button, which puts the page itself in line for re-review.

Two roles, deliberately separated. A reviewer fact-checks the claim against the page's accepted evidence and produces findings per claim. A separate adjudicator reads those findings and issues the verdict — accept, reject, or revise — along with any change to the trust score. The reviewer never decides; the adjudicator never researches.

Accepted decisions are anchored to Solana as a public audit record, so the history of a page can be checked for tampering by anyone, including against us.

Watch it happen: evidence under review · the on-chain audit log

You can submit links, transactions, addresses and social accounts without an account, and anonymous evidence is judged on the same terms as any other — the record cares whether a claim checks out, not who filed it. Free-form claims are the exception: they are unverifiable prose, so they need an account a moderator can follow up with.

Nothing you submit is published until a moderator has reviewed it. Until then the page shows only a count; signed-in readers can open the unreviewed evidence on the page itself.

To report something already on a page, use its Report link or see Report content.

Signing in adds a history. Accepted submissions raise your reputation score, rejected ones lower it, and contributors above the threshold are marked trusted. You choose per submission whether your handle is shown, and your profile sets the default.

Duplicates of evidence already on the page. Claims with nothing behind them. Anything that is an opinion about someone rather than a checkable fact about what they did. Submissions are rate-limited per entity, so volume does not help.

A rejection is not an accusation of bad faith — most are simply uncorroborated. Find a source and submit again.