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 · Shunda Park Scam Compound
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426250563
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T18:10:31.476Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- C6vupeBHNzJjCgA2SKejhuhf6uw7hC55qTQP83iLtB8i
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1171 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T18:10:31.282Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"0385a599-d12e-48f2-9567-9aa6787f27ce","new_score":0,"page_slug":"shunda-park-scam-compound","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer checked 23 discrete claims and found zero disputed. All 20 confirmed claims are backed by Tier 1 sources (DOJ, FBI, Treasury/OFAC, IC3, State Department) or corroborated Tier 2 regional outlets. The three partially-supported findings (claim_findings[8], claim_findings[9], claim_findings[26]) are minor: one omits that the defendants were traveling toward Burma rather than just 'traveling,' one involves a potential headline-number confusion on the Irrawaddy source, and one attributes an event to May 5 when the sourced article is dated May 4. None of these partial findings misstate a material fact. A high-priority coverage gap exists around the extradition status (not updated beyond April 2026), but open coverage gaps indicate expansion opportunities, not grounds for denial or revision.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}