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 · Bitcoin Latinum (LTNM) / Donald Basile
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426256331
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T18:48:42.291Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GEEqqfyxT7KMGFcRKj2igT4TA3wuiU1m5JrbWLAo1sBT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1082 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T18:48:41.946Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"74734cc6-7e4c-4265-b170-779c91c2418e","new_score":2,"page_slug":"bitcoin-latinum-ltnm-donald-basile","prev_score":2,"reason":"The reviewer examined 19 claims across the summary and timeline and found zero disputed claims. All 15 confirmed findings are backed by Tier 1 (SEC litigation release LR-26530) or corroborating Tier 2 sources. The 4 partially-supported findings (claim_findings[9], [12], [13], [16]) concern granular figures and a precise date where available evidence is consistent but not independently line-itemed — none contradict a stronger source. No link rot or staleness was identified. Two high-priority coverage gaps exist (empty section body text, absent on-chain analysis), but these represent content expansion opportunities, not factual errors, and do not affect the integrity of the claims that were reviewable.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}