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_approve · Transak
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425402975
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T20:46:42.022Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Captkup6tF2FbZMAWksq6Tj1vFyqUsQFoT4QS9Vy6mVR
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1186 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T20:46:41.778Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"641ae7b7-45b5-41ee-a639-bb92d3be674a","new_score":55,"page_slug":"transak","prev_score":55,"reason":"The reviewer assessed 30 claims and found zero disputed, 24 confirmed, 3 partially supported, and 2 unverifiable — yielding a disputed_pct of 6.7%, within the 0–10% approve band. The three partially-supported findings are characterization-level rather than substantive: the SOC 2 framing difference (claim_findings[10]) and the Fractal ID timeline nuance (claim_findings[17]) are minor editorial inaccuracies. The most notable finding is the conflation of federal SDFL case No. 1:25-cv-21146 with the state court settlement (CACE-25-010305) in claim_findings[20], but this does not alter the material facts of the $601K settlement, class size, or outcome. Reviewer confidence is 0.87 and no link rot or stale citations were identified. One high-priority coverage gap (Sumsub vendor confirmation) suggests a future expansion, not a denial.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}