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 · Raidparty
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464278927
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T23:35:27.207Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T23:35:50.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T23:35:50.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 95VSbwuMfzAJxNg2mim12kuf72zFioRJtkQiDCxseZvb
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1473 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"f4a158788a443d5860215cf55458bedc","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T23:35:26.934Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2727,"investigation_id":"7b79f354-a2d8-4603-a216-e3808afb96a3","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"raidparty","prev_score":26,"reason":"The core allegation (ZachXBT, 4,870 ETH, about $70 million, September 18, 2026) and the on-chain facts (holders, zero value, eight upgrades, last transaction, no audit) were confirmed, and the page presents them as unadjudicated allegations. Three of eleven checkable findings (27%) were disputed (claim_findings[0], [1], [2]); all three are one error: the about page names the team member 'Zarclead', not 'Zarch', which weakens the pseudonym-similarity discussion. The check on the 08:58 UTC post time was blocked by X and is excluded from the percentage. Smaller imprecisions (placeholder 2022-12-31 date, 'late 2022' upgrade period, an embellished sneaker-reselling description) and a high-priority gap on how the $70 million figure was derived also support correction rather than approval.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":11,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}