Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Falcon USD (USDf)
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
42 → 42 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443526128
Off-chain at
2026-08-27T13:12:09.375Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
Ar9LxYSknpqENgjpyBmsuhFn9cov7BvRPSPvKPXz49xj
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1320 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T13:12:09.265Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"069010b3-f3b4-4332-9cd3-8ffebb67db8f","new_score":42,"page_slug":"falcon-usd-usdf","prev_score":42,"reason":"The large majority of atomic claims on this page -- including the DWF Labs wash-trading allegations, the July 2025 depeg mechanics, the LlamaRisk and Pharos risk findings, and the WLFI/Justin Sun narrative -- were independently confirmed against their cited or closely related sources with high fidelity, often down to exact quoted phrases. The most significant defects are two internal-consistency failures (a funding total whose own itemized components do not sum correctly, and a WLFI-token-purchase claim that overstates what the cited source actually says), one recurring dated statistic (the 96%/4% off-chain reserve split from a July 2025 crisis snapshot) presented without qualification as an evergreen fact, an audit/attestation terminology conflation inherited uncritically from a source, and several current market-cap/ranking figures that could not be pinned down to their stated dates because DeFiLlama and web.archive.org were inaccessible to this review.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}