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_approve · BonkBot
- Sequence
- #7
- Score
- 49 → 49 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425407976
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T21:19:36.561Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- E21u5feZkNJAUhYVTFP6wit7dko6ytQ1MimtrT16pz73
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1330 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T21:19:36.332Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"691f4a75-e5d0-4cc7-a668-7a3042eef2ba","new_score":49,"page_slug":"bonkbot","prev_score":49,"reason":"The reviewer examined 34 claims and found 26 confirmed, 6 partially supported, 1 unverifiable, and 0 disputed, yielding a disputed_pct of 5.9% — well within the approve band. The most substantive accuracy issue is the '100% of fees to BONK buy/burn' claim (claim_findings[4] and [9]), which is contradicted by BONK DAO's own Medium post indicating only 10% of fees reach the DAO; this claim appears to be a commonly repeated marketing overstatement and warrants correction on the page but does not rise to a dispute. Volume and user count figures (claim_findings[2], [3], [22]) are partially supported and reflect data-snapshot timing rather than fabrication. One link rot finding (bonkbot.world FAQ) exists on a corroborating source whose content was independently confirmed elsewhere. Two high-priority coverage gaps — fee destination transparency and absence of a third-party KMS audit — are noted for future expansion but do not justify denial or revision of the published page.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}