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
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443522577
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T00:06:54.509Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HJX7FmiKZvCxxiTXCKoa9HWn8JgS5A3ovU6nSnf55HHm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1284 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T00:06:54.395Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"ab67741e-aa53-4dae-a2e9-1552ff42dbba","new_score":0,"page_slug":"zyaire-wilkins-steam-malware-crypto-theft-ring","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core factual scaffolding -- Wilkins' identity, arrest date, charge, alleged scheme mechanics, victim/loss figures, and investigative methodology -- is well supported by consistent, independently verifiable reporting tracing back to a 15-page federal criminal complaint filed in the Western District of Washington. However, the review found a specific date error (initial appearance stated as July 16 vs. contemporaneous reporting indicating July 15), an internal contradiction between two sections over whether all eight alleged game titles are named or one remains unidentified, an apparently unsupported claim of a distinct 'second unnamed individual' beyond the one co-conspirator ('Subject #1') described in every source, and a title/entity-name characterization of the scheme as a 'ring' that no consulted source uses or substantiates given only two identified participants are described.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}