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 · Playsomo
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 60 → 60 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 459474851
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-21T03:13:09.092Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-21T03:13:13.189Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- QGUbAbJ4cPifzXvGmnPW5PocdzVpYbg2nKwGmTRwmY7
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2243 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"5328896d269258498a4aac5b636b2a82","decided_at":"2026-10-21T03:13:08.872Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.0667,"findings_hash":"EcaXEJGEni5gboaymKVEJwqk6nEzBXwr7R7kRSLbDr93","investigation_id":"f9353971-d133-410f-8c63-66d8926378d6","mode":"findings_only","new_score":60,"page_content_hash":"591d86442ebab59a8ea16e2f3df5a3bbf3b5c8a4f88f79f8986c90b35aa5263d","page_slug":"playsomo","prev_score":60,"reason":"This page is unusually well-sourced and conservatively framed. Every factual claim I checked against the Taj Tarsha/Few and Far indictment (dates, dollar amounts, investor count, token mechanics, fund diversion, audit date, arrest/bond, sentencing exposure) was independently corroborated by direct fetches of CoinDesk and Cryptopolitan and by aggregated web search results, and none of the independent sources mention Playsomo, SOMO, or Animoca Brands in connection with Tarsha. The Animoca Brands acquisition of SOMO was independently confirmed via the official Animoca announcement, including the date, undisclosed terms, and the Yat Siu quote. The SOMO founding year/location (Tracxn) and team description (Crypto-Fundraising.info) were corroborated, the former via an independent database (PitchBook) after Tracxn and its Wayback snapshot were both inaccessible to this review. The three 'SOMO' token contracts (two ERC-20, one BSC) were independently checked and confirmed unrelated to the Playsomo brand, matching the page's caution. The one weak spot is a list of five outlets ('Cointelegraph, Crowdfund Insider, Cryptonews, KuCoin, and Bitget') naming Bitget as a covering outlet with no corresponding citation anywhere in the page and no Bitget coverage locatable via search — a minor overstatement, not a fabrication. The page's central epistemic move — treating the @0xd_eth tweet and any Tarsha-Playsomo link as an unsubstantiated, low-credibility allegation — is itself well supported: this review's own independent attempts to access the account and to find corroborating coverage also failed, for the same reasons the page describes.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}