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 · Axiom DEX
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 18 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443514313
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T13:23:33.065Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CtZ4oXDTYNE5u2YMY2cLSjyyhUKi3kZ1ss4fRgueu5Hf
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1849 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:23:32.642Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"6a3dde67-656a-44be-92c7-5379714b225a","new_score":18,"page_slug":"axiom-dex","prev_score":28,"reason":"Of 58 claims checked, the reviewer disputed 2 and could not verify 5, putting the disputed rate at 12.1% — within the minor-issues band. The core allegation (Broox Bauer's insider trading using internal Axiom tools) and its timeline, quotes, and revenue milestones are heavily corroborated across independent outlets, including verbatim quote matches (claim_findings confirming the 'shocked and disappointed' statement and the 'little to no monitoring' quote). Three specific problems keep this out of a clean approval: the page misattributes who recruited the moderator known as 'Mystery,' crediting 'Ryan' when two independent outlets name Bauer instead (claim_findings[20], [22]); the page states the investigation found Axiom held data on 'millions of users,' a specific figure no cited or consulted source actually supports (claim_findings[28], echoed as a high-priority coverage gap); and the summary states a $390 million revenue figure without noting it is a February 2026 snapshot, even though the body of the page correctly dates it (claim_findings[2]). Several other claims were marked unverifiable only because the page's top-cited source, CoinDesk, returned repeated 429 errors during the review — that is a limitation of the review's access, not evidence the page is wrong, and it was not treated as a mark against the page. The reviewer also confirmed no actual conflation with unrelated same-named projects occurred, though the page does not disambiguate itself, a lower-stakes fix.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}