Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← 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.

Sequence
#3
Score
00 (-14)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443514483
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T13:31:13.180Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
EtjYsx4fWZiWtCUZEiQGtwT6E6kCUAH5DoT3zsDpJyve
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2086 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:31:12.418Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"77f1bc76-abe9-4d92-8447-2baa6f8c9f17","new_score":0,"page_slug":"malone-lam-crypto-syndicate","prev_score":0,"reason":"The literal disputed rate is 9.4% (4 disputed + 1 unverifiable of 53 claims), just inside the approve band, and the page's core narrative -- the RICO prosecution, the $230 million Genesis-creditor theft mechanics, ZachXBT's identification work, and the two confirmed sentences -- holds up well. But the disputed claims are not evenly weighted: claim_findings[6] and [36] together mean the page presents a uniform 70-78 month sentence for all nine guilty-pleading co-defendants when only two sentences are confirmed and one defendant (Chetal) reportedly faces 235-293 months, both inventing and understating real people's criminal exposure. claim_findings[42] inverts a statute, describing RICO's 20-year per-count maximum as a 'minimum' for a named defendant's actual jeopardy. claim_findings[32] and [49] duplicate the same error across two sections: three named individuals (Dellecave, Ibrahim, Zulfiqar) are placed under charges roughly seven months before those charges existed. A related stale finding (claim_findings[33]) asserts two people are still at large when they have since been arrested -- a live inaccuracy about named people's custody status that the disputed_pct formula does not capture. These errors cluster around three of the review's high-priority coverage gaps (indictment chronology, RICO sentencing exposure, Chetal's status), which per policy should push a page toward revision even when the raw disputed percentage is low. Given reviewer confidence of 0.72 and a solid factual spine elsewhere, revision rather than denial is warranted, with a penalty toward the upper end of the minor-issues band to reflect that the errors concern real people's legal jeopardy rather than incidental details.","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}