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 · AB DAO
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 47 → 47 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464277737
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T23:31:23.898Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T23:31:33.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T23:31:33.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3qTFtP9KDHjQKKyNGMQ3jQF1isEbUZ8Dafcih61H7xDF
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1565 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"9b67d65ba827965e079677c4ea443b30","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T23:31:23.646Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1111,"investigation_id":"fedd75f6-e690-489e-9034-6a0d8e66d7da","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":47,"page_slug":"ab-dao","prev_score":47,"reason":"Of 11 claim findings, 2 could not be checked because the OCCRP source blocked the reviewer and were left out of the count. Of the remaining 9, 1 was unverifiable (claim_findings[5], the 'none formally charged' sentence, which is ambiguous given Chen Zhi's indictment), giving about 11%. The market data is stale (claim_findings[6]: CoinGecko now shows about half the June 2026 price and market cap) and the Bitget venue claim is not supported by the cited source (claim_findings[7]). The WLFI partnership, WLFI's response, the Yang Jian sanction and the rebrand were corroborated, and the project is still operating. The verdict moves from approve to revise because of the high-priority coverage gap: the OCCRP source, which most personal-detail claims depend on, could not be read. The penalty is kept small because the reviewer's confidence is low (0.5) and the omissions are only minor.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":9,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}