Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← 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_approve_with_notes · yg
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
4254 (+12)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443509436
Off-chain at
2026-08-19T16:40:03.767Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
5xstJDFntZgCMxyoyyyvFm1Eodh9qFA8uvc1aGnBGDHS
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2941 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-19T16:40:03.451Z","decision":"review_approve_with_notes","investigation_id":"6c537a8c-5995-4281-baf5-493283953a44","new_score":54,"page_slug":"yg","prev_score":42,"reason":"This pass judges calibration, not content: does YGG's WARNING (42) banding match its own conduct? The reviewer's incident-by-incident attribution finds no own-fraud or negligence by the entity — the token-price collapse is attributed to the industry-wide play-to-earn downturn (suffered, 'b'), the August 2023 surge/crash to selling by external VCs and market makers (third-party, 'c'), the impersonation scams to fraudsters abusing YGG's brand (third-party, 'c'), and the July 2026 YGG Play shutdown to a market-driven business restructuring the company itself describes as 'a market decision, not a product decision' (suffered, 'b'). claim_findings confirm no SEC/CFTC/DOJ action has been identified against YGG or its founders. Per the rubric's fraud-likelihood semantics, entities whose dominant risk drivers are suffered/third-party events cap at CAUTIONARY (50-69), not WARNING — the current 42 appears to reflect the page's own 'high'/'medium' severity tags on the price-collapse and tokenomics sections, which describe market outcomes rather than entity wrongdoing, the same suffered-vs-attributable conflation flagged elsewhere in the corpus. I agree with the reviewer's recommended band (CAUTIONARY) and point estimate (54): the entity is a real, operating DAO with named founders and institutional backing and no confirmed fraud, but the 99.8% token decline and the unproven, just-launched AI-data pivot following the YGG Play shutdown keep it in the lower half of the band rather than pushing toward VERIFIED. Content accuracy (the misdated $13.8M raise in claim_findings[10]/[11] and the misdated public-sale unlock in claim_findings[17]) is a separate, minor editorial issue that does not bear on this calibration verdict. Notes: (Correct the $13.8M DWF Labs/a16z token sale date from August 2023 to February 2023 in both the Token Launch and Funding section and timeline[9], per claim_findings[10]/[11].) (Correct the public-sale (25M YGG) unlock date: the page attributes a July 27, 2023 unlock to the public sale, but the cited DropsTab source shows the public sale unlocked at TGE in July 2021 — it was the advisor allocation that unlocked July 2023 (claim_findings[17]).) (Update the 'Current Strategy and Pivot' section to disclose the July 31, 2026 shutdown of YGG Play (Launchpad, LOL Land, Waifu Sweeper) and the 35 layoffs, and the pivot to an AI/gaming-data model, per claim_findings[3]/[19] and coverage_gaps[0].) (Refresh the mid-2026 price/rank/market-cap snapshot in sections[2]; live data now shows a lower price and rank than stated (claim_findings[13]).)","score_delta":12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}