Skip to main content
Sign in
← 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_revise · Nelly
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
48 → 40 (-8)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
423950681
Off-chain at
2026-06-03T04:04:23.365Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
74k7JzvPoAv1CFqX2yvtGztyc7aCJ2vipNDJH9XDTKbE
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1237 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-03T04:04:22.743Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"bd93d224-985e-4ebc-ae8a-be2a7da9c5f3","new_score":40,"page_slug":"nelly","prev_score":48,"reason":"Of 13 claims reviewed, 11 were fully confirmed and 0 were disputed. The two partially-supported findings (claim_findings[2] regarding the @NellioETH account type, and claim_findings[6] regarding the absence of confirmed victim loss figures) reflect minor precision gaps rather than factual errors — secondary sources document at least one on-chain victim loss of approximately 93.24 ETH, making the page's 'no amounts confirmed' framing an overstatement. The page's core characterization of Nelly as a victim rather than perpetrator is robustly supported by multiple Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. The most significant structural problem noted is a high-priority coverage gap: all five page sections are entirely empty, with substantive content confined to the summary and timeline. Revision is warranted to address the loss-figure framing and populate at least one section with incident detail.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}