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 · Hayden Davis
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 3 → 0 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562520
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:43:28.190Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8W4UJnAEGUjceBTShecTZx2ku68nKpQTgwPCoZCGXezc
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1916 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"2485678c55dc09444e62e5a6510973b3","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:43:28.022Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"0cee50ed-f881-42c4-9398-ac0c3a4b30c5","new_score":0,"page_slug":"hayden-davis","prev_score":3,"reason":"The page's central factual spine -- the timing and mechanics of the $LIBRA launch and collapse, the scale of investor losses, the on-chain wallet extraction, the Novelli bribery documents, the phone-call evidence, and the U.S. litigation history -- was independently confirmed by the reviewer against multiple credible sources (claim_findings[0], [5], [6], [9], [10], [14], [15]). No claim was found to be disputed. However, several claims show attribution or characterization drift that overstates certainty: the page credits Nansen with a $99M liquidity-extraction finding that the cited source actually attributes to Chainalysis (claim_findings[7]), the page frames a denial as coming from Karina Milei when the cited source shows it came from Davis's spokesperson instead (claim_findings[11]), and the page states an Interpol notice 'was subsequently issued' when the sources checked describe only a prosecutor's pending petition (claim_findings[2]). A cluster of granular figures -- the November 2025 congressional report specifics, the 34-address/$124.6M aggregate, the $500M TRUMP pre-sale valuation, and the Portnoy refund -- could not be verified within the reviewer's budget and remain unverifiable rather than confirmed (claim_findings[4], [12], [13], [18], [19], [20]). These are editorial-accuracy problems, not fabrications, and the reviewer's own confidence (0.62) reflects real research gaps rather than confirmed falsehoods.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}