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 · GoodDollar
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 34 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462279556
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-28T00:49:38.126Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-28T00:50:04.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-28T00:50:04.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7ut3rfQYgCGqkMutF7mYXwU354LHTtLFyDBpS4u7gzFV
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1625 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"80d759ce93c419de3ebe81bfec31090e","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-10-28T00:49:37.909Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1667,"investigation_id":"d8cb7307-a2f3-4d4c-bc73-50f44b65b74f","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":34,"page_slug":"gooddollar","prev_score":42,"reason":"The core September 2026 incident facts (loss amounts, dates, the Celo-specific Superfluid flaw, the hotfix) were confirmed against CryptoSlate (claim_findings[0], [1], [5]). One of six scoreable claims (about 17%) could not be verified: the statement that Chainalysis created an incident report is attributed to CryptoSlate but does not appear in that article (claim_findings[2]), and the related timeline entry and the 222-country figure were only partly supported (claim_findings[3], [4]). Two of eight findings (25%) were excluded because the sources blocked the reviewer, so the December 2023 figures and the 2020 launch date remain unchecked; this is a coverage limit, not a defect. A high-priority gap on the unreadable GoodDollar Medium post and a minor omission (no status after mid-September 2026) support a small penalty rather than approval; reviewer confidence was moderate (0.55), so the penalty is kept at the low end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-8,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}