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 · Dialect
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 74 → 69 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423652984
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-01T19:11:51.631Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5P7zwXS9Kochk8Cc3LXxUqm3xkHeGfsn3CLrHP8qL4R5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1403 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-01T19:11:51.502Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"d16f845e-8e68-4387-8519-a0206bac030c","new_score":69,"page_slug":"dialect","prev_score":74,"reason":"The review confirmed 26 of 33 claims via credible independent sources, with a disputed_pct of 6% — well within the approve band. However, two issues prevent a clean approval. First, claim_findings[8] identifies a clear factual error: the page lists @Chris_Osborn as the founder's personal X handle, but that account belongs to an unrelated filmmaker; the correct handle @aliquotchris is also on the page but the erroneous attribution should be removed. Second, the arXiv SolPhishHunter paper (claim_findings[17]) is cited to support Blinks-specific phishing vectors, but the reviewer confirmed the paper does not mention Blinks or Dialect — this overstates the academic backing for that risk claim. Additionally, a high-priority coverage gap flags that the page presents Blinks adoption as a growing success while omitting the CEO's own July 2025 public acknowledgment that Blinks did not achieve the viral mainstream uptake originally projected; this omission creates a materially more favorable impression than the current state of the product warrants.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}