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 · Dialect
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 69 → 69 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424151579
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T02:17:37.154Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EMYbhUnjenHgHWiE9XpRGXqH81zG5XA7J12fLNix9VKx
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1037 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-04T02:17:37.046Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"d16f845e-8e68-4387-8519-a0206bac030c","new_score":69,"page_slug":"dialect","prev_score":69,"reason":"The Dialect investigation page is generally well-researched and its material claims are supported. The most significant factual error is attributing @Chris_Osborn as Osborn's X handle (it belongs to an unrelated person); @aliquotchris is his confirmed handle. The arXiv SolPhishHunter paper is real but does not document Blinks-style phishing as the page claims, and the DEV Community wallet-drainer article cited for Blinks phishing evidence returns a 404. Seven claims are partially supported due to minor date imprecision, an internal founding-year inconsistency (2019 vs. 2021), or the Multicoin quote being slightly misattributed. No claims were found to be materially false or fraudulent.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}