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 · Polygon (POL)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 52 → 52 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425561307
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-10T14:11:53.215Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 34rFJC5Qebx1WuavopLq7RjFEcC4DDPMLhmxmauyZDj9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1053 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-10T14:11:52.983Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"e1eee299-13f1-46e7-a2d8-249418ef628d","new_score":52,"page_slug":"polygon-pol","prev_score":52,"reason":"The Polygon investigation is substantially accurate — the majority of claims are confirmed by credible sources. The most significant deficiency is that the SEC regulatory section is materially stale: the Binance lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in May 2025, yet the page characterizes MATIC's security classification as an ongoing concern. Minor issues include: the $1M loss attribution to Nailwal's rationale overstates the official sourcing (it originated from a third-party researcher); Bjelic's stated reason for departure is characterized as 'vision divergence' without evidentiary basis; and a timeline citation mismatch where the February 2023 layoff is cited with the February 2024 article URL.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}