Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← 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 · Dash
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
45 → 39 (-6)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443525501
Off-chain at
2026-08-27T10:51:44.256Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
HtJ2RqDqeD9fxjVLQzL1PxA163dyKeQYJCJa6kNbuCmj
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2235 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:51:43.620Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"8968605b-bdbe-4f99-97fd-36ef3c917306","new_score":39,"page_slug":"dash","prev_score":45,"reason":"Independently recomputing from the reviewer's claim_findings array gives (0 disputed + 1 unverifiable) / 11 = 9.1% disputed, which sits inside the 0-10% approve band on accuracy grounds alone: nothing on this page was found to be false. Seven of eleven claims, including the founding history, instamine mechanics, and the EU AMLR ban, were independently confirmed (claim_findings[0-4], [8], [10]). But three findings temper that: the Gate.io claim (claim_findings[6]) is accurate to its cited source, but that source itself overstates a narrower margin/perpetual delisting as a full trading removal; the Bybit delisting date (claim_findings[7]) is off by about two months from a placeholder; and a specific FinCEN $500-threshold claim (claim_findings[9]) could not be verified because the source returned an error and no matching FinCEN action was found. None of these rise to 'disputed,' but they show a pattern of imprecision in the page's most recent, least-checked section. More consequential are two high-priority coverage gaps: the page omits Dash's decade-long pre-2024 delisting history (Coincheck 2018, Upbit and Bittrex 2021), which makes its 'mounting regulatory pressure' framing read as a newer development than the record supports, and the page is disproportionately thin (four short sections, four sources) for a fourteen-year-old top-tier asset with an extensive public record. This is not an ordinary 'more detail would help' gap; it changes how an accurate claim on the page is read, so it is treated as pushing the verdict out of the approve band even though the raw disputed percentage would otherwise clear it, consistent with the rule that high-priority coverage gaps can move the verdict independent of disputed_pct. The revision is placed at the low end of its penalty range because the reviewer's confidence (0.70) is moderate and no claim was actually found false.","score_delta":-6,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}