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 · Venice Token
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 43 → 43 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464369019
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T04:57:25.789Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T04:57:30.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T04:57:30.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HU8q4eTNVz86FWfmXRzaxS43CSwEJCnomRVUQZWpDmrK
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1895 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"997eb61027706174b8dd6ddcd7b890a1","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T04:57:25.544Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3571,"investigation_id":"dc66f033-59d6-4ef7-a0f8-12de7de13ec7","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":43,"page_slug":"venice-token","prev_score":43,"reason":"About 36% of checkable claims (5 of 14: two disputed, three not found in the cited sources) were not supported, which falls in the significant-issues band. Two timeline dates are wrong (claim_findings[0] launch date and claim_findings[9] Aerodrome suspension date, both should be 2025-01-27). The insider-dump figures are stated as fact although the source presents them as one analyst's allegations that Voorhees disputes (claim_findings[3]), and the CowSwap, governance and GPU/privacy statements are not in the cited sources (claim_findings[4], [11], [12]). The page also omits the project's later status (omission_findings[0]). The core story of the launch, the Aerodrome suspensions and the price decline is confirmed, and reviewer confidence is moderate, so the penalty is held mid-band and the page is not delisted.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"The review reports a material omission (the page stops in February 2025 and says nothing of later burns, reduced emissions or funding) and finds the page contradicts the project's current operating status. The percentage band already sits at significant, so the escalation holds the verdict there rather than allowing a lower band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}