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_approve · The Conversion Pros Inc.
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 0 → 2 (+2)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464588312
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T18:00:34.504Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T18:00:59.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T18:00:59.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BzqV7FSrYJKcbT5SHURXSiVjr1DWTMZALiiaAmDE3neq
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1443 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"3025d555c8e6506626298855f3a6f3f3","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T18:00:34.181Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0833,"investigation_id":"d6c86c4f-dd82-4bbd-9256-1f72ecbc9d26","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":2,"page_slug":"the-conversion-pros-inc","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 12 claims checked, 9 were confirmed against the CFTC complaint, the CFTC press release, and the FCA and ASIC pages (claim_findings[0-8] excluding [8]). None were disputed. One absence claim (claim_findings[11], that TCP and Pope have not publicly responded) could not be positively verified, which gives a disputed rate of about 8%. Two minor precision issues were noted: the filing date in the timeline is month-only (claim_findings[10]), and the CFX Legacy no-link wording may understate its tier-3 source, which the reviewer could not read (claim_findings[9]). The only omission is minor (relief sought by the CFTC), and no subject-status contradiction was found. Open coverage gaps suggest expansion, not a penalty.","replaces_fact_checks":{"score_before_fact_checks":2,"undone":1},"reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":2,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}