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 · Solana Token-2022 Permanent Delegate Rug Pull Factory
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 4 → 0 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426257417
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T18:55:56.380Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3La5bCGeaGyaoXGZqNuJYMkoasxGUYxzrvzDEuFLVW8S
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1441 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T18:55:56.155Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"a6572085-f452-40d1-b238-b9699664fdfe","new_score":0,"page_slug":"solana-token-2022-permanent-delegate-rug-pull-factory","prev_score":4,"reason":"The investigation's core technical and statistical claims are well-sourced: the Permanent Delegate mechanism description (claim_findings[0–2]) is confirmed verbatim by official Solana documentation, and the Solidus Labs and SolRugDetector statistics (claim_findings[6–9, 15]) are verified directly from their primary sources. The one disputed claim (claim_findings[27]) is a peripheral SLERF timeline entry with an incorrect SOL amount (~50,000 vs. ~53,000) and a mischaracterization of the burn mechanism; this is a factual error but does not touch the investigation's core allegations. Three unverifiable claims (claim_findings[11, 12, 16]) all derive from a 404'd dev.to community post, a weakness the page itself acknowledges by labeling them 'alleged and low-confidence.' Two high-priority coverage gaps remain — independent on-chain verification of the '40% of new tokens carry Permanent Delegate' prevalence figure and quantification of Permanent Delegate-specific losses — and should be addressed before the page is considered comprehensive.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}