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 · Polkadot (DOT)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512028
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T07:05:01.279Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3YuYWpV5WC6snnpk7Qt1T2s2hFd57YvQtzd478LJ5xcn
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1112 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T07:05:01.163Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"98b78ed6-e47d-48f6-99c6-5d091e26f8cc","new_score":62,"page_slug":"polkadot-dot","prev_score":62,"reason":"The large majority of atomic claims (27 of 38) are confirmed against independent, credible sources, and most figures for the ICO freeze, ETF launch, tokenomics reform, and JAM roadmap check out closely. However, the review found one direct contradiction of a cited source (the Q4 2025 treasury report claim of negative net flows, when the report itself shows a positive result), one numeric mismatch against the page's own cited source (Moonbeam-related DOT price move stated as 3.6% vs. the source's 3.02%), and one stale figure (the Hyperbridge exploit loss total, later revised roughly 10x higher by Hyperbridge itself). Several other findings are partially supported due to omitted counterarguments, imprecise dates, or incomplete custodian/percentage framing.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}