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 · Stake DAO
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 46 → 36 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443525333
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T10:41:31.166Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AhUSnz9tiFkWTc6dU1hohmfu7Bve1sgG3MBTPxUh4WNC
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1332 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:41:30.520Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"22690c77-993d-44f5-aa47-0b2304ade6c1","new_score":36,"page_slug":"stake-dao","prev_score":46,"reason":"The math on disputed claims alone is favorable: 1 of 11 checkable claims (9.1%) was disputed, and the page's core risk content -- three security incidents (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]) -- was independently confirmed in precise detail against primary sources. However, two factors keep this out of a clean approve. First, claim_findings[8] shows the page's stated SDT all-time-low price and date directly contradict the page's own cited CoinGecko source, and that figure is also outdated following a new low set after the 2026 exploits; claim_findings[7] shows a similar mismatch on the all-time-high figure. Second, coverage_gaps[0] found that all seven of the page's content sections were empty in the reviewed state, meaning the vast majority of the page's substantive prose was never actually checkable -- a high-priority gap that limits how much confidence an 'approve' can carry. Together these push the page into a light revision cycle rather than a pass or a serious denial.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}