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_approve · TypeSol
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 40 → 40 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464245376
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T21:35:30.819Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T21:35:59.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T21:35:59.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HwX6d54xE3vungUesKnme9Hp6wbMUsZ2bk5Z3ShGSas7
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1181 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"47ddd3b4de5ee03c0d81ed32726cdb05","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T21:35:30.426Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"714290d2-b12f-4d11-b587-9c67d394355f","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":40,"page_slug":"typesol","prev_score":40,"reason":"All five scoreable claims (claim_findings[0], [1], [2], [4], [5]) were confirmed against typesol.com, giving 0% disputed. claim_findings[3] (the Solscan link) was excluded because Solscan returned a 403 to the reviewer, which says nothing about the claim. The review found no omissions and no shutdown, exploit or sanction. The one high-priority coverage gap (on-chain token analysis) is already stated on the page, which says token safety is unassessed, so it points to future expansion and not to a defect.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":5,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}