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 · Arcadia Finance v1
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 50 → 50 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465087907
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T23:43:55.094Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T23:44:11.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T23:44:11.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6FgoxQmpgaxFzVzuQFYnrCy8bB68Xo8uokUJX67ixF9L
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1453 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d9022772490e915520e4c59f8d5fdf4c","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T23:43:54.832Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.125,"investigation_id":"cba3a26a-3789-4b6c-9429-ca7d9dfd4a18","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":50,"page_slug":"arcadia-v1","prev_score":50,"reason":"Of 10 claims checked, 2 could not be checked because the source refused the reviewer (claim_findings[4] and [9]) and are left out of the count. Of the remaining 8, one was disputed: the Renascence Labs audit is dated June 2024 on the page, but the official audit page gives Q1 2024 (claim_findings[0]). That is 12.5% disputed, which falls in the minor band. Several other claims were only partly supported, including the 90/10 ultimatum terms, the 46% AAA drop and an editorial sentence about systemic weaknesses. The only omission is minor, since the page does not mention the recovery program or that v2 still operates. The penalty is kept at the light end because reviewer confidence is moderate-to-low (0.5) and the core narrative matches the sources that could be read.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}