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 · Operation Economic Outcast — Iran Digital Asset Sanctions
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562164
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:41:00.844Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AqB2HFzjFvemXx3AyATa3wzX23w1yWeYD5Z6HpQrW1iU
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1606 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"66c959df429981b7b85ef8d47707fd53","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:41:00.412Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0526,"investigation_id":"c9f9d42f-0622-41f4-9b01-67194f90dca9","new_score":0,"page_slug":"operation-economic-outcast-iran-digital-asset-sanctions","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 19 claims reviewed, 15 were fully confirmed against primary Treasury/OFAC sources and independent reporting, 3 were partially supported on minor granular details, and 1 was unverifiable within the scope of the review; none were disputed or contradicted (claim_findings summary, disputed_pct 0.05). The only meaningful imprecision found was the 'nearly 60' designation count, which the page correctly attributes to Treasury's own public framing even though raw OFAC list data suggests a higher total (claim_findings[0]). The partially-supported items — the number of addresses added to Behzad Mesri's SDN listing, prior VARA enforcement actions against Shelbit, and the FinCEN 311/CISADA framing (claim_findings[15], [16], [17]) — are secondary details, not core allegations, and were not contradicted by any source. Coverage gaps identified are all medium or low priority and point to opportunities for expansion (linking the primary Federal Register notice, covering post-announcement enforcement outcomes, adding critical/opposing commentary) rather than defects in what is published.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}