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.
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 28 → 28 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516321
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:10:29.646Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- JD8xtXb9HfjWu3hANFgEZ61eNSqdM9tWp3N5epKPQHDZ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1438 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:10:29.464Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"b2053f83-78a0-4a66-b2cc-6cbb4bd884dd","new_score":28,"page_slug":"pump-fun-solana-labs-jito-labs-rico-mev-class-action-sdny-2026","prev_score":28,"reason":"The page's core factual scaffolding -- the case caption, docket number, filing dates, defendant roster, dollar figures, and the Jito Labs dismissal -- is well corroborated by both primary (Skadden, UK Companies House) and multiple independent secondary sources, and the page consistently and correctly frames allegations as allegations rather than established fact. Two disputed findings were identified: a citation to a FinanceFeeds article for a set of specific procedural dates (Dec 9 2025 order; Jan 23/Feb 13/Feb 20 2026 MTD schedule) that does not actually contain those dates, though the underlying dates are corroborated elsewhere; and an incorrect district (Eastern instead of Southern District of New York) for the parallel Peraire-Bueno MEV prosecution. A separate stale finding notes the page omits that same trial's November 2025 mistrial. Three claims were rated partially supported due to unverified sub-details (an IP-violations predicate, exact MEV tooling specificity, and an SEC statement date off by roughly four weeks).","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}