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 · Broox Bauer
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462168602
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T18:16:01.936Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T18:16:06.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T18:16:06.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8t5R5j1qTFkBwX4ciwESgX86o3dcNUDnQ9jyn3dsb1Vj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1373 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b9930a2269ef55dc91429339f894f129","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T18:16:01.599Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.125,"investigation_id":"b501a392-df51-40a0-8f74-d8c3e590bd81","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"brooks-bauer","prev_score":26,"reason":"Six of the eight claims checked were confirmed against Tier 2 sources, including the core allegations, dates, dollar figures and Axiom's response. One claim could not be verified: the statement that the co-founders were not alleged to have known about the conduct (claim_findings[7]). That puts the unverified share at 1 of 8 (12.5%). One further claim, naming Ryan/Ryucio and Gowno/Seb (claim_findings[6]), is only partly supported because it rests on a single aggregator that does not allege wrongdoing by them. The review found no change in Axiom's status and no omissions, and it lists a high-priority gap on developments after February 2026. A small penalty applies, softened because the reviewer's confidence was moderate.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}