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 · ALEX Lab
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 34 → 24 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425199144
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-08T22:14:55.166Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4VHBsabybA2wtqkMdUAkNg6y8pn4mBoj44gQqapnrvhf
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1429 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-08T22:14:54.969Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"25658d19-cb95-40ef-a7c2-05be94678fa1","new_score":24,"page_slug":"alexlab","prev_score":34,"reason":"The review found 28 claims across the page, of which 18 are confirmed by credible sources, 5 are partially supported, and 5 are unverifiable — with zero claims actively contradicted by stronger counter-evidence. The partially supported findings include a token name misspelling in claim_findings[16] ('ssl-labubi-672d3' vs the correct 'ssl-labubu-672d3' per Halborn), a minor proxy-upgrade count discrepancy in claim_findings[3] (four vs five upgrades across secondary sources), and a framing issue in claim_findings[1] where the summary presents the self-reported $8.3M figure without flagging it as disputed. The five unverifiable claims in claim_findings[24], [25], [28], and [29] rely on a single tier-3 source (AICoin) for financial metrics that are contextual rather than central to the investigation. Three high-priority coverage gaps — reimbursement execution status, enforcement outcomes from the Singapore Police engagement, and on-chain wallet address corroboration — represent material omissions given that the June 2025 pledge was made over a year before this review.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}