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_approve · FX Winning / David Merino Quintana
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462277268
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-28T00:41:42.705Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-28T00:41:57.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-28T00:41:57.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- ESd1mWkFvtMGwJxn3YwiZ267kKuXfYPYj4MeHPkcHGNV
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1453 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"69d6d6f52c692bd45c603ca8a3c39174","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-28T00:41:42.419Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"7110be02-af51-4049-bf0b-002f8a8452d8","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fx-winning-david-merino-quintana","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of seven claim findings, one was unverifiable only because its sources were not fetched (source_blocked) and was left out of the count. Of the six counted, four were confirmed and two were partially supported, with none disputed, so the disputed share is 0%. The main flaw is claim_findings[3], where a timeline entry names Martin Nappa but the cited Criptonoticias article does not mention him; this is a minor attribution issue. The reviewer found no omissions and no conflict between the page and the subject's status (company shut down in 2023, leader reportedly arrested in Dubai in June 2026, both stated on the page). About one in seven findings was not checked because sources were not fetched, which limits coverage and is not a defect of the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}