Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Lighter
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
62 → 62 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443524822
Off-chain at
2026-08-27T08:10:43.773Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
9V6oUd19zCpdTZzQK2q7m9PqjdLv1SmfRUQzBjfogDYR
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1253 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T08:10:43.598Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"57ca093a-20b9-4376-b1f3-da1709c2243e","new_score":62,"page_slug":"lighter","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's core factual scaffolding -- team background, funding history, valuation, the zk-rollup/centralized-sequencer technical architecture, the HYPE bot/wick incident, the withdrawal disruption episode, and post-airdrop volume decline -- is well-sourced and holds up against independent verification, including against L2BEAT's non-marketing technical analysis. However, review found a real audit report the page incorrectly says could not be located, a compensation claim that appears to conflate two distinct incidents (masking a materially more serious, unmentioned October 2025 outage), a private-beta launch date that a primary source (the founder's own tweet) places a full year later than stated, a token-allocation breakdown that does not sum to 100% against the page's own cited source, and a restricted-countries list that omits three jurisdictions present in the directly-cited Terms of Service.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}