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_approve_with_notes · PeopleDAO
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 48 (+6)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443509267
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-19T04:00:08.955Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 962ArQtoSb7xqeFAgwyNEhZiJWh2wFusG9TQewWcVCbr
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2066 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-19T04:00:08.702Z","decision":"review_approve_with_notes","investigation_id":"28b0aaa9-98f7-4552-b0ea-b8e96024fc77","new_score":48,"page_slug":"peopledao","prev_score":42,"reason":"This is a calibration-only adjudication; content accuracy was not disputed (disputed_pct 0.0%, 13/14 claims confirmed, 1 partially_supported on a ~2-week timeline date). The substantive incident is a March 2023 theft of 76.5 ETH (~$120K) enabled by PeopleDAO's own operational-security failure (a publicly editable payroll Google Sheet) rather than pure third-party exploitation of code outside the DAO's control — per the page's own scoring instruction, own-negligence in a still-operating, non-convicted entity places this correctly in the WARNING band (20-49), consistent with the reviewer's incident_attributions[0]. Within that band, strong mitigating post-incident conduct — public disclosure within a week, voluntary law-enforcement and exchange notification, cooperation with ZachXBT and SlowMist, a good-faith 10% bounty offer, a comparatively small absolute loss, and no recurrence in the 3+ years since — justifies moving toward the top of the band rather than the middle. I agree with the reviewer's recommended_score of 48 (current_score 42), a modest 6-point lift that keeps the band unchanged and reflects conduct rather than facts in dispute. Notes: (Correct the KuCoin delisting timeline entry: the announcement was dated Nov 11, 2025 with an effective window of Nov 17-21, 2025 (UTC), not Nov 1, 2025.) (Note in that same entry that KuCoin's delisting was a routine, simultaneous action across six unrelated tokens (C, FLR, HOME, SPK, PEOPLE, RESOLV), not a PEOPLE-specific risk signal.) (Regenerate the six page sections before publication confidence is placed in them — as delivered to review, all `heading` and `content` fields were empty, so section prose could not be fact-checked.)","score_delta":6,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}