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_revise · Chris Larsen
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 59 → 59 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464298400
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:45:06.984Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:45:16.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:45:16.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3QUeqLDAtEnZoKVuWnXXodK274poq9LNaHkVexz7CoeS
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1682 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"a74edbbc17afcd317438dc0e008f64ab","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:45:06.692Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.5,"investigation_id":"e5734f78-2101-4c4a-84d8-963676a26bd8","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":59,"page_slug":"chris-larsen","prev_score":59,"reason":"Of 14 reviewed claims, 6 were disputed and 1 was unverifiable, giving a disputed rate of 50%. The disputed claims are the Ripple/SEC resolution (claim_findings[0-3]), which wrongly describes a $125M settlement returning $75M of $150M, dates it March 2025 and says Ripple paid $50M, when the court rejected the $50M deal and the $125M penalty and injunction stayed in place. The CEO step-down date is also wrong (claim_findings[4-5]): it took effect in January 2017, not January 2016. The core biography and the 2024 wallet hack narrative are broadly consistent with reporting, so the page is revised and not denied.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":false,"band":null,"from_band":"significant","reason":"The material omission (the $125M penalty and injunction against Ripple remain after the August 2025 dismissal) is the same defect already behind the disputed SEC-resolution findings, so the 50% band already reflects it. No shutdown, exploit or sanction of the subject is missing from the page (subject_status.contradicts_page is false)."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}