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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443517361
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T22:18:45.631Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7KDXXttdh1fz5heK8L6ZVRePEu7V7uXeXzUTxK87zPs4
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1342 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:18:45.528Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"396643eb-ec66-4db4-a8c0-189283b3d26c","new_score":2,"page_slug":"neyro-token-aurum-foundation-exit-scam-rebrand","prev_score":2,"reason":"The large majority of atomic claims on this page are well supported by the cited sources, which were independently verified through direct fetches and corroborating searches; the central claim that Neyro is a rebrand of the same Aurum Foundation operation (rather than the page's own inference) is directly established by the primary cited source's own language. Weaknesses found were mostly minor: a few invented day-level date precision where sources only support a month, one misquoted operator statement, one citation pointing to an adjacent article rather than the article that actually supports a given date, an unverified LinkedIn-removal claim sourced only to a reader comment (with a contradicting follow-up comment), and one settled-fact framing of a connection (Morand/Vietnamese Ponzi) that its own source poses as a question. No claims were found to be disputed by contradicting credible sources, and no link rot was found among the sources checked.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}