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 · GMGN.ai
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 58 → 58 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443524567
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T07:05:45.587Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8H75eNBhAapagdj3sGzbRRMNnS9LRz6dq2VQehB832X5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1230 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T07:05:45.326Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"fc811077-cde8-4cc1-9c08-8b91657cbf92","new_score":58,"page_slug":"gmgn-ai","prev_score":58,"reason":"The page's core factual scaffolding (founding date/team, fee structure, custody model, team identity, and general characterization of Trustpilot/scam-score sentiment) is well supported by primary and independent sources. However, two of the page's four timeline-anchored security incidents are dated a full year off (the January 2026 fake-app episode actually occurred in January 2025, per the cited tweets' own timestamps and a corroborating ChainCatcher article), and the summary's blanket claim that no breach of GMGN's own infrastructure has been documented is contradicted by well-reported October 2025 incidents (an anti-sandwich/MEV exploit and a separate phishing wave, both compensated by GMGN) that the page omits entirely. The page correctly avoids overstating an 'AI' capability claim and correctly treats named founders as self-identified rather than speculatively unmasked.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}