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 · Midnight (NIGHT Token)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 52 → 44 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443523568
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T03:59:14.134Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CfeJgxPU2h8VQFgWYGXLSbXj7cz3NwtXWhdgQZDpAP9Z
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1686 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T03:59:13.902Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"218911ca-385a-47de-bcf3-b74916c5fa74","new_score":44,"page_slug":"midnight-night-token","prev_score":52,"reason":"Of 33 claims checked, 28 were confirmed outright, including entity identification with no name-collision (claim_findings[0]), tokenomics and Glacier Drop mechanics (claim_findings[9]-[13]), the mainnet launch date, and the July 2026 Wanchain bridge exploit and its aftermath (claim_findings[3],[4],[15]-[19]). The disputed rate computes to (1 disputed + 2 unverifiable) / 33 = 9.09%, which sits within the approve range on its own; the two 'unverifiable' items (claim_findings[8],[27]) are careful 'no enforcement action identified' statements that match what the reviewer's own search also found, so this reads more as a limit of the review's search tools than an inaccuracy on the page. What moves this to revision is a high-priority coverage gap: a timeline entry (claim_findings[20]) dates a phishing-warning incident to July 20, 2026, when the underlying source is from December 9, 2022 -- and notably, the page's own prose section describes the same source correctly, so the error is isolated to the timeline component contradicting sound prose. A high-priority structural gap of this kind warrants a targeted correction even when the overall dispute rate is low. A secondary, lower-severity issue is a funding figure (claim_findings[7], 'over $100 million' from IOG) that none of its four cited sources actually state.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}