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 · Asymmetric Research
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 82 → 77 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443561336
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:36:47.324Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2nKTQDWDUMk8gLrYxs81RXevZkUSaq71KUhRXsxCPjsM
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2443 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"5b452159421dfb1103168078a636ef7c","band_override":{"actual_delta":-5,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0.0588,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"The reviewer confirmed 31 of 35 claims with no disputed claims and a disputed_pct of 5.7%, which on its own would support approval. However, the review surfaced a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]): the page does not mention the December 2025 shared-leadership arrangement between Asymmetric Research and OtterSec, a material governance development involving one of the firm's own co-founders that readers evaluating the entity's structure would reasonably expect to see. Two smaller issues reinforce the need for a light revision rather than a clean pass: claim_findings[11] found the page understates Jeff Schroeder's public profile (he has an official team page and Crunchbase listing, not just a bare name mention), and claim_findings[21] identified a mismatched citation URL on the Solana p-token timeline entry, though the underlying fact it supports is independently confirmed elsewhere."},"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:36:47.151Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0588,"investigation_id":"32e99313-f1cd-4ae6-aed7-c70d28b72801","new_score":77,"page_slug":"asymmetric-research","prev_score":82,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 31 of 35 claims with no disputed claims and a disputed_pct of 5.7%, which on its own would support approval. However, the review surfaced a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]): the page does not mention the December 2025 shared-leadership arrangement between Asymmetric Research and OtterSec, a material governance development involving one of the firm's own co-founders that readers evaluating the entity's structure would reasonably expect to see. Two smaller issues reinforce the need for a light revision rather than a clean pass: claim_findings[11] found the page understates Jeff Schroeder's public profile (he has an official team page and Crunchbase listing, not just a bare name mention), and claim_findings[21] identified a mismatched citation URL on the Solana p-token timeline entry, though the underlying fact it supports is independently confirmed elsewhere.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}