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 · Vitalik Buterin
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 35 → 25 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426279406
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T21:21:22.920Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- C3fuKeu1vKUGupHEiG1J563KJrpCAZyvbvcPojD8sb8G
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1263 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T21:21:22.509Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"1e5a0170-7238-4c75-8a3d-9543ebe7c48b","new_score":25,"page_slug":"vitalik-buterin","prev_score":35,"reason":"The page's core premise — that Vitalik Buterin is a legitimate public figure whose identity is systematically weaponized by scammers — is strongly confirmed across Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. However, the review found 12.5% of claims disputed or unsupported: claim_findings[10] contains a material date error (the Aaron Goldfarb account hack is listed as January 2022 but sources place it in September 2022), claim_findings[14] has a dead CoinTelegraph citation with no live replacement listed on the page, and five claims (claim_findings[7], [8], [9], [11], [15]) contain quantitative overstatements including overstated viewer counts, a mischaracterized time window, and an inflated percentage figure. Additionally, two high-priority structural gaps — entirely empty section bodies and absent on-chain wallet data for the September 2023 hack — leave the page materially thinner than the evidence supports.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}