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 · CryptoZoo
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 8 → 8 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443522379
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T23:08:36.111Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5Zr1rQyPNkHxEvZ9qfBeh1tAfrRmJGregqYCtsNUX19x
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1468 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T23:08:35.889Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"088645b0-b093-42f2-bc92-1e51607a7328","new_score":8,"page_slug":"cryptozoo","prev_score":8,"reason":"The page's core narrative (CryptoZoo's launch, collapse, the Coffeezilla investigation, the class-action dismissal, and the defamation suit) is well-supported by independent sourcing, including primary court dockets. However, it conflates the 'held the source code hostage' allegation (which independent reporting attributes to a different developer, 'Z'/Zach Kelling) with Eduardo Ibanez's separately documented fabricated-credentials scandal; contains an internal arithmetic inconsistency in the ZOO token price-collapse timeline; asserts a 'co-founder' label for Jake Greenbaum that is not consistently supported by sources describing him as a promoter/marketer; uses a consistently wrong dismissal date (Oct 30 vs. the correct Oct 29, 2025) and a placeholder filing date for the defamation suit that is off by 26 days; carries two dead citation URLs (EssentiallySports, Wealth of Geeks) with no working archive; omits that the vast majority of the pledged buyback program was actually paid out; and presents the defamation trial as merely awaiting a verdict when in fact the scheduled trial date passed without occurring.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}