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 · USDS
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 63 → 55 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443525152
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T10:11:27.092Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 78xeNnGK32SGGQhD77xhAbA6LAngrpzt9d8XnCV6wjxG
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1764 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:11:26.507Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"8c9f63d8-429b-485d-a10b-9975e2ab32de","new_score":55,"page_slug":"usds","prev_score":63,"reason":"This page's most consequential claims about USDS were independently confirmed accurate: the collateral/mechanism classification, the freeze-function controversy (correctly described as a dormant, never-exercised capability rather than an action Sky has taken), and the December 2024 custody episode involving $756M in reserves (claim_findings[1], claim_findings[16], claim_findings[20]). Only 3 of 35 checked claims were disputed (8.6%), and all three cluster around internal governance history rather than the page's core risk claims. The page misdates when MakerDAO's 'Endgame' plan was approved, conflicting with both its own cited source and an independent record (claim_findings[24], claim_findings[30]), and it reverses the timing and outcome of an internal rebrand vote, describing as a pre-launch rejection what was actually a post-launch vote that kept the Sky branding (claim_findings[27]). Separately, the page's claim that legacy DAI and MKR balances remain usable 'indefinitely' is now stale: Sky introduced an escalating 2025 penalty for MKR holders who delay converting to SKY, a fact directly relevant to readers still holding those tokens (claim_findings[8]). The raw disputed rate falls inside the approve range, but two high-priority coverage gaps tied directly to these errors are enough to warrant a correction pass rather than a clean approval, so the verdict is revised down with a light penalty.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}