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 · CLAWD Token (Fake ClawdBot AI Scam)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465100356
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-04T00:28:23.243Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-04T00:28:43.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-04T00:28:43.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Cu2PTKFy3fJmrbgRyKdeyzvqfNTXS4Wrb21oppLBsw8H
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1382 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fa5fd6945e3d4104fa6bdec4b9ecff34","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-04T00:28:22.910Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"8fba1cf6-a0cd-4354-9881-487443b156e4","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":0,"page_slug":"clawd-token-fake-clawdbot-ai-scam","prev_score":2,"reason":"The core story (handle hijack during the rebrand, a fake Solana $CLAWD token peaking near $16M, a sharp collapse, and the founder's denial) is supported by reputable outlets. Two of seven checked claims could not be verified: the roughly $14M loss figure is derived rather than sourced (claim_findings[1]) and the bot-monitoring detail is absent from the cited source (claim_findings[2]), giving about 29% unverified. Other points are loosely stated, including the 90% decline figure and an inconsistent token address spelling, and the page has no on-chain evidence of who profited (high-priority coverage gap). The reviewer checked only a limited set of sources, so the penalty is kept at the lower end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}