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 · Curio
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464298232
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:44:23.984Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:44:40.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:44:40.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DJ45GzFKK2bvzt15qUKgLDwDLNfpR1iJWttT44WNUYZf
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1581 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b9015643a37d373253068f77253baa08","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:44:23.719Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1111,"investigation_id":"fab6ead4-3fe8-4c91-acad-4791c1109db0","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":55,"page_slug":"curio","prev_score":55,"reason":"The core exploit facts (March 23, 2024 date, about $16M loss, about 1 billion CGT minted, attacker address, no known audit) were confirmed by REKT and Halborn (claim_findings[0-3], [7]). Counting the claim findings, 1 of 9 scored claims was unverifiable (the founder biography, claim_findings[7]), which is about 11% and puts the page in the minor-issues band; one unverifiable finding was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[5]). The page also has several partially supported details: the white hat bounty is simplified to a flat 10% when sources describe 10% in week one and 5% after (claim_findings[4]), and the CGT 2.0 date reflects press coverage rather than the March 25 plan announcement (claim_findings[8]). The primary recovery-plan source could not be read, which is a high-priority coverage gap, so the penalty is kept small given the reviewer's moderate confidence.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":9,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}