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 · BONK.fun
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 52 → 44 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443512632
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T07:54:50.266Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2EvZMma2XC25FvVK73aerAx5BX9Hp3EA3LcJamdUzK4C
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1596 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T07:54:50.066Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"4e806f2b-5b8e-47a3-b0ec-336c97b71675","new_score":44,"page_slug":"bonk-fun","prev_score":52,"reason":"Of the 34 claims checked, 27 were confirmed and only one was disputed (5.9%), a rate that would normally support a clean approval. That disputed item (claim_findings[31]) concerns a third party, Pump.fun, and a misdated 2024 controversy, not BONK.fun's own conduct, so it carries limited weight. What moves this page to revision is a coverage gap the reviewer marked high priority: the page states, but never analyzes, that a BONK core contributor sits on the board of Bonk, Inc. while Bonk, Inc. simultaneously holds a 51% revenue interest in the platform that contributor helps run (coverage_gaps[1], grounded in already-confirmed claim_findings[3] and [6]) — a related-party structure worth flagging on a risk-intelligence page. Two smaller sourcing problems reinforce a light revision: BONK.fun's own reported fee-distribution split conflicts, without disclosure, with a tier-1 CoinDesk figure (claim_findings[16]), and an early usage statistic is cited to sources that don't actually contain it, though the underlying number checks out elsewhere (claim_findings[7]). A stale Q1 2026 revenue projection (claim_findings[14]) was also found but understates rather than overstates the platform's performance, so it adds no risk-relevant severity.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}