Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Phantom Wallet
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#4
Score
69 → 57 (-12)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
419606678
Off-chain at
2026-05-14T03:35:45.093Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
GhddYFK5NE8FUeMHiVp1HLeJx3PAsrbwq7F2YRsYkpUx
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (963 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-05-14T03:35:44.973Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"534e51fc-2dbe-42e6-86ff-3f144efce521","new_score":57,"page_slug":"phantom-wallet","prev_score":69,"reason":"Two factual errors require correction: claim_findings[16] misidentifies the compromised npm versions as '1.96.7' (should be '1.95.7'); timeline entry (index 15) incorrectly attributes CFTC Letter 26-09 to 'Division of Enforcement' when it was issued by 'Market Participants Division', contradicting the page's own section text. Two high-priority coverage gaps—pending lawsuit status update and regulatory claim validation—should be addressed. Overall, 11 of 19 claims are fully confirmed with strong Tier 1 sourcing, but the internal CFTC inconsistency and missing lawsuit outcome tracking justify revision.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}