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 · Platypus Finance
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 49 → 49 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464380492
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:38:07.473Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:38:31.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:38:31.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7VtX5RcYZuaskn8MAnntvtzK5ULb5k3XnRH2Gm5C527p
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1324 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"418902f9286d0265433a430ac6d24de4","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:38:07.267Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"26ccbf94-f508-49e9-9bb5-6f7863aab154","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":49,"page_slug":"platypus-finance","prev_score":49,"reason":"The core account of three 2023 exploits, the February emergencyWithdraw flaw and the Paris acquittal held up, but 2 of 8 checked claims (25%) were disputed or unverifiable. The summary's combined loss figure of $11.75 million does not match the page's own per-incident figures (claim_findings[0]), and its TVL peak and floor ($200 million and $100,000) contradict the page body (claim_findings[1]). The five-year sentence request could not be found in the cited source (claim_findings[4]), and several other details were only partly supported. The reviewer's confidence was moderate and its omission finding was minor, so the penalty stays in the lower part of the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}