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 · Benjamin Paul Wiener
- Sequence
- #11
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464182822
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T17:52:06.065Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T17:52:26.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T17:52:26.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DrfMg5NwHsJVVXqDG8aMmv7aKZBvHwwHHNEuNWQbkKRR
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1280 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"ee10d23a373730ce23818646bda3c48d","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T17:52:05.760Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"96a72320-d999-48ba-9830-5555d5ecabd6","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"benjamin-paul-wiener","prev_score":26,"reason":"Of the 8 claim findings, 7 were confirmed and 1 (claim_findings[4], the August 15, 2025 receiver order) was partially supported because the reviewer saw only search excerpts of the order. None were disputed or unverifiable, so the disputed share is 0%. The review found no omissions and no contradicting change in the subject's status, and the page frames the charges as allegations and says Wiener is presumed innocent. The one high-priority coverage gap, a missing primary court docket (the unresolved $5.7M versus $13M figures), is already disclosed on the page itself, so it points to a future expansion and not to a penalty.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":11,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}