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
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443515510
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T17:15:44.166Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5pi3W7wmm3T9yCquduanTS2QMHLoLFkAwvWR8uZYhGJR
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2209 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T17:15:43.868Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"56994de0-caa9-4f3b-a96b-45f2684a5ad6","new_score":0,"page_slug":"nicolo-nourafchan-robert-yadgarov-sec-doj-insider-trading-ring","prev_score":2,"reason":"The page's factual scaffolding — defendant rosters across both indictments and the SEC complaint, every charge-to-defendant assignment, six independently checked dollar figures, the five foreign regulators, and the 20-year statutory maxima — was verified word-for-word against the primary DOJ indictments and SEC complaint (claim_findings[0,3,4,7-15,18-21,26-28]), giving a disputed_pct of 20.7% (4 disputed + 2 unverifiable of 29 claims), which sits in the revise band. But one of the four disputed claims carries outsized weight: the page states in three places (M&A Deals section, timeline, and Criminal Charges section) that Nourafchan's obstruction of justice counts arise from accessing iRobot deal files while on leave in 2022, when the indictment's actual obstruction counts concern unrelated July 2025 conduct — instructing a co-conspirator to lie to investigators and destroying phone evidence (claim_findings[17]). This is the reviewer's sole high-priority coverage gap and misdescribes, for a named individual facing real criminal prosecution, both what he is charged with and what he isn't. Three additional issues compound the concern: the page attributes a 2014 scheme start date to both the SEC and DOJ when the SEC's own complaint defines its period as 2018-2024, inflating apparent exposure (claim_findings[5]); it says Gershowitz 'received' a $30,000 kickback when the complaint states he was owed that amount but actually received less (claim_findings[16]); and it asserts the SEC will seek industry bars, a remedy not found anywhere in the complaint's prayer for relief (claim_findings[23]). Given the reviewer's high confidence (0.82) and the direct, document-verified nature of these findings, the correction burden is real even though it does not undermine the page's core narrative.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}