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 · Rathnakishore Giri
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425428263
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T23:33:30.118Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HnEg1wMZJAGW7QxYPrMDiSTdPRacgqAHhvfHHjFj2Ewd
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1173 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T23:33:29.894Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"9fc34a71-4cbd-47c4-b12a-6a7c1f199011","new_score":0,"page_slug":"rathnakishore-giri","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer found 19 of 22 claims confirmed, 2 partially supported, and 1 unverifiable, with zero disputed claims and a computed disputed_pct of 4.5%. The unverifiable claim (claim_findings[0], the 'Ravi' alias) is a minor identifying detail absent from all reviewed sources — not a core allegation — and does not undermine the page's factual integrity. The two partially supported findings (claim_findings[2] on scheme date range and claim_findings[21] on luxury items) reflect minor framing imprecision rather than factual error; both are consistent with primary source evidence. Two high-priority coverage gaps remain (CFTC civil action outcome, restitution/forfeiture orders), but gaps indicate areas for future expansion, not grounds for denial. No link rot, stale citations, or contradicted claims were found.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}