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 · Argent Capital Management LLC / Trevor L. Vernon
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462169975
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T18:20:37.686Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T18:20:59.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T18:20:59.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BhZbLHurnn6F6fCNkEXwmtvjp7PvjCrTM69LXQ9GokM5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1439 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"5ae515f14d96ce15013242b93b5207cb","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T18:20:37.367Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2,"investigation_id":"5ecd1ce5-2492-4569-90e9-f562ec9d11e6","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"argent-capital-management-llc-trevor-l-vernon","prev_score":26,"reason":"The core allegations (case number, filing date, $14 million solicited, $8.6 million in losses, Ponzi-style payments, air travel spending) were confirmed against the CFTC press release and complaint. Two of nine checkable findings were disputed (claim_findings[6] wrongly says the complaint does not detail the false statements, and claim_findings[9] gives a placeholder date of 2026-01-01 instead of January 15, 2026), about 22% once the one source-blocked LinkedIn/IAPD finding is left out. Both errors are peripheral and the page correctly labels everything as civil allegations. The high-priority gap, the court docket not being checked for the 'as of September 2026' status claim, keeps this at revise rather than approve.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":10,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}