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 · Porkbun
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 40 → 62 (+22)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514476
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:15:58.084Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HTaCZNXJuYbLBkyjwymdD3yJzUSySYgXpTHwkmhN9krX
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1487 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:15:57.976Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"7d7855a3-e056-4c0f-8356-5c876bdf832c","new_score":62,"page_slug":"porkbun","prev_score":40,"reason":"The blue-chip calibration review found zero disputed claims across all six claim_findings — page content is accurate and stands as published. The WARNING score of 40 is demonstrably miscalibrated because every cited incident involves third-party actors (Angel Drainer, Inferno Drainer operators) abusing Porkbun's neutral registrar infrastructure, which is an industry-wide pattern also seen at GoDaddy, Namecheap, and NameSilo. Two findings are particularly load-bearing: claim_findings[2] shows the central ZachXBT allegation is unverifiable as a Porkbun-specific indictment — it conflates general drainer investigations with a registrar-level charge — and claim_findings[3] shows the chatdefi.app 'one month of inaction' example is contradicted by PhishDestroy's own data showing a 20-day takedown. Porkbun's phishing domain rate (~0.026% of portfolio) places it well below industry bad actors and outside the top 20 registrars by phishing domain count (claim_findings[1]). A CAUTIONARY score of 62 accurately reflects real but marginal third-party-abuse caveats without implying fraud or negligence that the evidence does not support.","score_delta":22,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}