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_revise · Goliath Ventures / Christopher Delgado
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443518704
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T23:09:03.859Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GduYjAhGdPD3sLZ5GhPXvDvqKeVDKuSxTM31cC3P4MEX
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2075 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T23:09:03.721Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f6f77518-dd5a-4dd9-af79-69e44c34b339","new_score":0,"page_slug":"goliath-ventures-christopher-delgado","prev_score":0,"reason":"This page's core criminal-case facts hold up: Delgado's identity is well-pinned with no namesake conflation, and the arrest, guilty plea, admitted $250M in losses, forfeiture list, bankruptcy filing, and the JPMorgan class action are all independently confirmed against DOJ, IRS-CI, and independent reporting, including a verbatim-verified attorney quote about 'pillars of the community' (claim_findings[23]). Counting the review's own claim array (39 confirmed, 4 partially supported, 1 stale, 5 unverifiable, 0 disputed out of 49 claims), disputed_pct works out to 5/49 = 10.2%, just over the approve threshold. Two specific defects justify a revise rather than a clean pass: the page's summary still states an outdated October 8, 2026 sentencing date even though the page's own body text and timeline correctly show it was moved to October 21 (claim_findings[8]) -- an internal inconsistency on a fact readers would care about ahead of a pending sentencing. More significantly, the page omits parallel SEC and CFTC civil complaints filed August 11, 2026 -- two weeks before this review and within the page's own claimed 'as of August 2026' currency window -- which cite materially different aggregate loss figures ($425M/1,300 investors and $397M/1,600 customers) and a $51M personal-misappropriation figure not mentioned anywhere on the page (coverage_gaps[0], rated high priority). The five 'unverifiable' claims that make up the rest of the disputed percentage are largely minor sub-figures or single-source claims the page already flags as lower-confidence (claim_findings[35, 38, 43, 45, 46]), so they do not represent hidden factual landmines, but by rule they still count toward the score.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}