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 · EQIBank
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 18 → 10 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462180186
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T18:56:49.115Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T18:57:04.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T18:57:04.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BoxysvbcJdCiePdxqH6zp1h9AkTpxjDyQWpBe9NaCQsM
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1472 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d5f036d108083d2853a6b7d516da5901","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T18:56:48.882Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1429,"investigation_id":"c9d60800-bbd1-4704-9ce3-f3c6fb6b35d2","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":10,"page_slug":"eqibank","prev_score":18,"reason":"Of 8 claims reviewed, 1 was source_blocked and excluded, leaving 7. One of those (claim_findings[2], the FBI-impersonation allegation) could not be found in the sources checked, giving 1 of 7 (about 14%), which falls in the minor-issues band. The core facts (July 15 forfeiture complaint, $84.2M total and account breakdown, June 5 supervision, July 16 denial) were confirmed. The case number in claim_findings[0] may belong to EQIBank's own matter rather than the forfeiture complaint, and claim_findings[5] slightly overstates a ceiling estimate as an analyst estimate. The review also lists a high-priority gap on October 2026 case status. The reviewer's confidence was low (0.55), so the penalty is kept at the mild end. No omissions or contradictions of the subject's status were reported.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-8,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}