Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Phantom Wallet
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
69 → 69 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
419606675
Off-chain at
2026-05-14T03:35:45.035Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
4tnfumtFPA3cUoo7wtRynSSmybrZomHdtkeFyez9FFaQ
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1272 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-05-14T03:35:44.973Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"534e51fc-2dbe-42e6-86ff-3f144efce521","new_score":69,"page_slug":"phantom-wallet","prev_score":69,"reason":"The Phantom Wallet investigation page is generally well-sourced and factually accurate for its major claims about funding history, founding team, security incidents, and regulatory posture. Two substantive errors were found: (1) the supply chain attack section incorrectly states the second compromised npm version as '1.96.7' when all authoritative sources confirm it was '1.95.7'; (2) the timeline entry for the CFTC no-action letter incorrectly names the 'Division of Enforcement' as the issuing body when it was the Market Participants Division — an error that contradicts the section text of the same page. One Wayback archive URL in sources_used points to an entirely unrelated article. Three unverifiable claims relate to self-reported Phantom policies or specific details (10:55 p.m. restoration, 2,000 domain blocklist, IP address privacy policy) that could not be independently confirmed from accessible sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}