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 · Libra / Diem
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 30 → 25 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443515966
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T18:57:11.994Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CTQLXHF3TqVoU7EuBNR2Y5HxRTjGJHANGUwJG8s3rqea
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1463 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T18:57:11.442Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"d6865fa7-7035-47a3-833c-fd51e578d379","new_score":25,"page_slug":"libra-diem","prev_score":30,"reason":"This page's account of the Facebook/Meta Libra-to-Diem project is well-sourced: 12 of 15 checked claims were confirmed directly against primary records, including an SEC filing, FINMA's own announcement, a PR Newswire statement, and congressional testimony. The reviewer's disputed_pct works out to 13.3%, driven by two specific issues rather than broad inaccuracy. claim_findings[6] flags that the citation used for Vodafone's January 2020 withdrawal does not actually mention Vodafone, even though the underlying fact is independently true and confirmed elsewhere. claim_findings[14] (a claim about two senators writing to payment companies) could not be verified within the review's scope, and claim_findings[13] (broader regulatory-legacy claims) relies on secondary commentary rather than primary institutional sources. None of these touch the page's core narrative, and the review found no confusion with the unrelated 2025 Solana LIBRA memecoin despite the shared name. These are citation-quality and sourcing-depth gaps, not factual errors, so the page is revised rather than approved outright or denied.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}