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 · Polymarket
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 22 → 22 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 449569185
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-23T02:35:20.464Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FeuijxGYKErvk88oPEWR4eZ5wWHHzNf3TN3WrSXwxoTF
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1060 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b6974ee82d6b2318954efc0c0e5e03c7","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-23T02:35:19.883Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"e79a082e-deb8-4d91-88ce-d964801aaebf","new_score":22,"page_slug":"polymarket","prev_score":22,"reason":"Of the 17 claims the reviewer checked, 16 were confirmed against independent tier-1/tier-2 sources and only one (claim_findings[3], the September 2026 CFTC insider-trading probes disclosure) was marked partially_supported, solely because the page credits 'CCN and other outlets' rather than WIRED for filing the underlying FOIA request. The underlying facts of that claim were independently corroborated and not disputed. That puts disputed content at roughly 1 of 17 claims (about 6%), within the approve range, and no high-priority coverage gaps were found that would push toward revision.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}