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 · Cod3x
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 48 → 48 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443525536
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T10:55:21.063Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- SstnT7zR2UU1Ca8yyNFMUx2jn6DnkUKC2Tm6DvPoxRt
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1283 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:55:20.498Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"e92fd795-e2ee-4446-aae1-5a25cc8aaeca","new_score":48,"page_slug":"cod3x","prev_score":48,"reason":"The page's core historical narrative (Byte Masons origins, Reaper Farm exploit, Ionic Money contagion, rebrand timeline, and token distribution arithmetic) is largely well-supported by its cited sources and independent corroboration. However, several figures the page derives from its own printed data are internally inconsistent (the FDV/market-cap ratio claim contradicts the page's own circulating-supply figures), one claim directly contradicts its own cited source (a CertiK audit is described as pre-dating the Reaper Farm exploit when the source shows it came three months after), the Ionic Money loss figure appears cherry-picked from a larger total reported by the same cited sources, and two data points (the token's all-time low and current market cap) have been superseded by more recent, more severe figures not reflected on the page. The 'no major CEX listings' claim also appears to be incorrect based on current exchange data.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}