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 · Zeus Network
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 42 → 37 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443501731
- Off-chain at
- 2026-07-24T01:02:36.794Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7JycBp7FJVfUTWcmmLDbBXwugS1qTbCW8Yqsf36d7DNA
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1436 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-07-24T01:02:36.116Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"e426ee73-b31d-4633-80c0-71ffac4c5d68","new_score":37,"page_slug":"zeus-network","prev_score":42,"reason":"The reviewer found no disputed claims out of 17 checked (disputed_pct 0.06), with 12 confirmed, 4 partially supported on minor precision points (claim_findings[6] job-title nuance, [9] rank estimate, [14] a single date, [15] an understated TVL figure), and 1 unverifiable low-priority founding-year detail (claim_findings[16]). The page's central editorial judgment -- that the abandonment allegations are unverified rather than confirmed -- held up and was, if anything, conservative relative to what independent checking found (claim_findings[3], [13]). However, the reviewer flagged two high-priority coverage gaps that go to the heart of the abandonment/exit-risk question this page exists to answer: no analysis of treasury or insider wallet activity, and no review of the Bitcoin custody bridge's security/audit history despite it holding tens of millions of dollars in assets. Because these gaps concern the page's core risk thesis rather than peripheral detail, they merit a modest revision rather than a clean approval, even though no factual claim on the page was disputed.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}