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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443521728
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T17:07:50.419Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7qnu75RyhwUBaedJefjX4FEDF4y5WC4diTWLx2DpZgCp
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1350 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T17:07:50.291Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"9d1c3851-93aa-49f3-b9f9-bf72fd0ffcfc","new_score":0,"page_slug":"john-daghita-aka-lick-us-marshals-crypto-theft","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's central legal-status claims (15-count EDVA indictment, charges, $46M theft figure, arrest details, extradition timeline through the May 28, 2026 Basse-Terre approval) are consistently corroborated across independent outlets and, for the extradition proceedings, by higher-quality French-language regional press than the page's own cited sources. No fabricated indictment, mischaracterized civil suit, or wrongly attributed alias was found; the 'Lick' alias traces to Daghita's own self-disclosed online handle during the recorded incident rather than to an unrelated third party. The main weaknesses are a total absence of primary legal documents (no DOJ/USAO press release, indictment text, or docket was locatable, so charge and count details rest on a single reporter's social posts), a probable internal date error in the $LICK token timeline entry, and an uncorroborated social-media claim of full fund recovery that the page does not address either way.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}