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 · Storj Labs
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 28 → 28 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443515121
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T14:16:14.706Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9SQ5cDZZ8dpECUmHcVdjcxK9mGzEyjbQg96piSz8cVXu
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1257 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T14:16:14.104Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"f12aad5f-8d71-4276-a66a-901e1f6e10e1","new_score":28,"page_slug":"storj-labs","prev_score":28,"reason":"This page is a well-scoped, evidence-grounded account of Storj Labs' July 2026 Chapter 11 filing; nearly all factual claims — the filing details, funding history, token price impact, node-operator payment mechanics, and broader market context — were independently confirmed against primary sources (Storj's own blog/press release, court-filing figures, and multiple independent outlets). The page does not assert unfounded wrongdoing and appropriately hedges claims it cannot substantiate (e.g., no causal link found between the Inveniam acquisition and the bankruptcy). Two issues were found: a factual error in the BitMart user-count figure (page says 'over nine million,' contradicted by BitMart's own reporting of over 13 million), and an overstated legal claim that the token-to-equity structure has 'no established precedent in U.S. bankruptcy jurisprudence,' which its own cited sources do not establish.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}