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 · Falcon USD (USDf)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 30 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443526136
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T13:12:09.463Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6UfwfXKQpTPbPf5nLdPB4TWXFm7R9LdBbEjhWJX55Lg7
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1728 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T13:12:09.265Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"069010b3-f3b4-4332-9cd3-8ffebb67db8f","new_score":30,"page_slug":"falcon-usd-usdf","prev_score":42,"reason":"Out of 76 individually checked claims, 56 were confirmed and only 2 were disputed, putting the disputed-plus-unverifiable rate at about 11.8% -- inside the range that calls for revision rather than removal. The two disputed items matter more than their small share of the total suggests: claim_findings[57] shows the page's own itemized funding numbers ($10M + $5M + $16M) add up to $31 million, not the $45 million the page states as the total, and claim_findings[49] shows the page describes WLFI as having 'required' Falcon Finance to buy its tokens as part of an alleged pattern targeting multiple startups, when the cited article actually describes a neutral, reciprocal purchase by the parent company -- language stronger than what the source supports. These sit alongside a cluster of partially-supported findings (claim_findings[12], [36], [44]) showing the page presents a July 2025 crisis-era reserve snapshot (96% off-chain / 4% on-chain) as a standing structural fact and calls an assurance attestation an 'audit.' A high-priority coverage gap around stablecoin regulatory status was also flagged. None of this points to fabrication or link rot, and the reviewer's confidence was moderate, so the page does not warrant denial or delisting, but the reserve-related overstatements and the inflated WLFI accusation justify a real, not token, downward adjustment.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}