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
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 8 → 0 (-14)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443513469
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T10:19:09.447Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BSZPYT3A3gZCsaPTR6BAxeuuRHckkamWRb84Vvk5ENAL
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1638 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T10:19:08.999Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"d60b5eec-d2d5-4189-9390-291aa8a829cf","new_score":0,"page_slug":"france-dgfip-tax-data-breach-crypto-wrench-attack-enablement-august-2026","prev_score":8,"reason":"Fact-checking confirmed the large majority of this page's claims -- breach scope and figures, the CertiK and Chainalysis wrench-attack statistics, the Waltio breach, the 2024 tax-official data-sale case, and named incidents including the Ledger co-founder kidnapping -- against multiple independent sources (33 of 41 claims confirmed, disputed_pct 12.2%). However, the page's central thesis -- that the DGFiP tax breach 'directly amplifies' or has a 'direct operational link' to physical wrench attacks -- is not supported by any cited source; those sources consistently describe the connection as a possible risk, not a demonstrated mechanism, and this overstatement recurs in the summary and again in the page's dedicated risk-chain section, alongside a related claim that oversells what CertiK's own report says. The review separately found a quote misattributed to researcher Jameson Lopp and a sourcing claim about a victim-ranking methodology that could not be located in its cited article. Because the disputed items concentrate on the page's headline claim rather than scattering across peripheral facts, the penalty applied sits at the upper end of the applicable range even though the overall dispute rate is modest.","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}