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 · Predatory Sparrow (Gonjeshke Darande)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 30 → 22 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443519307
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T05:06:01.370Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CGeeSJnjPSbMnq1vbxkQ8AhWxfbwSfKUDXT56F4o9zGH
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2119 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T05:06:01.065Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f0b8d42e-a7c3-4496-9ac1-4b897646124e","new_score":22,"page_slug":"predatory-sparrow-gonjeshke-darande","prev_score":30,"reason":"Of 43 checked claims, zero were disputed, 33 were confirmed, 5 partially supported, and 5 unverifiable, giving a disputed_pct of 11.6% (claim_findings[11]/[35] for the IRIB wiper attack and claim_findings[15]/[38] for the June 2025 Bank Sepah attack drive the partially-supported count, alongside a minor 22-vs-23 parameter count on the Meteor wiper in claim_findings[22]). That places the page just inside the review_revise band. The substantive issue is that the page states the January 2022 IRIB wiper attack as settled fact in both its narrative and timeline, when the cited source does not actually support that attribution and independent researchers found no technical proof, explicitly urging caution toward the group's self-claim; a similar pattern appears for the June 2025 Bank Sepah attack, which the page states as fact against a source that says it could not independently verify the incident. Both are cases of taking a threat actor's own unverified claims of responsibility at face value, which inflates the actor's documented track record rather than merely getting a date or figure wrong. That said, most of the review's 5 'unverifiable' findings are artifacts of a 403-blocked CCDCOE source, one superlative characterization, and one unprovable negative claim -- not defects in the page itself -- and the page notably resists the more common failure mode in this batch: it keeps the Unit 8200 state-affiliation link framed as unsubstantiated speculation (claim_findings[29]) rather than upgrading it to confident attribution. A mismatched archive_url on the steel-plant citation (pointing to an unrelated Chabad-center fire story) is a metadata defect but the live URL works and was not counted against the page's substance.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}