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 · Bitcoin Mission
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 25 → 25 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426265970
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T19:52:30.421Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GCGVywXpRTFYf93mBvj9hzuzcGSAEgDQxYEEWMVw4RS5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1065 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-13T19:52:30.310Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"5d69fe15-d330-4f21-92cb-f20b3b737182","new_score":25,"page_slug":"bitcoin-mission","prev_score":25,"reason":"The page's two confirmable claims — that legitimate entities share the 'Bitcoin Mission' name, and that no Tier 1 evidence of the flagged entity exists — are accurate. However, the foundational claim underpinning the entire page (a ZachXBT flag) cannot be independently verified through any indexed public source, including ZachXBT's own Telegram channel. The page also has severe structural issues: all four sections are empty, sources are misplaced in metadata fields rather than body content, and no on-chain evidence is present. A trust score of 25 applied to an entity whose misconduct cannot be sourced poses a real disambiguation risk given the existence of unrelated legitimate entities with similar names.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}