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 · Dialect
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 74 → 74 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423652977
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-01T19:11:51.577Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3mpLAgUB68pVYrwGoGp2foSToBNwyeeYtx6F1MCnYg5z
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1034 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-01T19:11:51.502Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"d16f845e-8e68-4387-8519-a0206bac030c","new_score":74,"page_slug":"dialect","prev_score":74,"reason":"The Dialect investigation page is largely accurate and well-sourced, with most material claims confirmed by credible independent sources. The single outright error is attributing @Chris_Osborn as Osborn's X handle (it belongs to an unrelated filmmaker); his confirmed handle is @aliquotchris. The SolPhishHunter arXiv paper cited to support Blinks-style phishing does not actually mention Blinks or Dialect, constituting an overstatement. A significant coverage gap is the absence of any discussion of the CEO's own July 2025 acknowledgment that Blinks did not achieve the viral mass-adoption originally anticipated, which presents a more flattering picture than current reality may warrant.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}