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 · Underdog Predict
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 56 → 56 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462168591
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T18:15:55.117Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T18:16:04.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T18:16:04.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 39WspB23vFpJmmBfpnPCwh5DfjvA5F5w29UQMJFkiwRA
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1797 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"6b5dece9d120c766d144d562a9e2af25","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T18:15:54.807Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"e5fd887a-c6fc-46c6-a7a5-a8cdb487cba0","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":56,"page_slug":"underdog-predict","prev_score":56,"reason":"Of 7 claims checked, 2 could not be verified (claim_findings[1], the Lamont quote, and claim_findings[2], the Connecticut withdrawal provision; the cited source did not contain either) and none were disputed, giving about 29%. The core regulatory narrative (Connecticut and Missouri cease-and-desist orders, Underdog's preemption suits) was supported. Three further claims were only partly supported: the Missouri 30-day window, a likely one-day offset in the lawsuit date, and the UDX launch day. The page also omits the pending IG Group acquisition of Underdog announced 2026-07-30 (omission_findings[0], material). The reviewer did not fetch several sources and its confidence was moderate, so the penalty is kept in the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":false,"band":null,"from_band":"minor","reason":"The IG Group acquisition is a material omission, but the subject is confirmed operating and the page does not contradict its status. The omission is a missing corporate update rather than a risk the page hides, so it is reflected by placing the penalty at the upper end of the minor band instead of moving to the significant band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}