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 · TD Bank
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
30 → 30 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
426514451
Off-chain at
2026-06-14T23:15:57.530Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
69KJSshVmkMnnAeM3SR4TKhTq8AxxcdunLJUtym6dSaL
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1952 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:15:57.459Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"4d3a1bc6-8e6e-4b8d-9510-2690a4e0aff2","new_score":30,"page_slug":"td-bank","prev_score":30,"reason":"Blue-chip calibration review (Prompt A). Verdict: over-penalized. Page content is treated as accurate; the trust_score band is miscalibrated. TD Bank is a fully legitimate, publicly traded major North American financial institution — not a scam, Ponzi scheme, or exit fraud. The October 2024 guilty plea to money laundering conspiracy and the $3.09B+ in penalties represent genuine, severe, confirmed institutional negligence: the bank intentionally under-resourced its AML compliance program under a 'flat cost paradigm' for nearly a decade, enabling criminal networks to launder over $600M through unmonitored accounts. This is own-negligence attribution, not third-party abuse of an innocent victim. Under AVOID.NET's current band semantics, WARNING (20-49) is reserved for 'elevated fraud/loss risk or unresolved severe incident'; CAUTIONARY (50-69) covers 'legitimate with material caveats.' The incident was historic and severe, but the bank is actively remediating (spending $500M+/yr, majority of AML work complete per American Banker), under independent monitorship (Guidepost Solutions), already in compliance with the OCC asset cap, and remains one of North America's largest regulated financial institutions. A score of 52 in CAUTIONARY reflects the seriousness of the proven institutional failure and unresolved monitorship obligations, while correctly distinguishing a negligent-but-legitimate institution from a fraudulent one. An outside skeptic can verify: the DOJ case page, FinCEN press release, OCC consent order, and American Banker's 2025 remediation report all support this calibration.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}