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 · Worldcoin / World
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 33 → 33 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464375123
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:19:03.287Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:19:22.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:19:22.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DpySkEGed6xBftgPrMgeBBtjpswU8p1HD65ce3ji5xJi
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1821 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"1c46699b7a624477e2dd1847eeabec66","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:19:02.812Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1818,"investigation_id":"b1309bae-c2ff-4821-8ade-9b74941473bd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":33,"page_slug":"worldcoin","prev_score":33,"reason":"No claim was found false. 2 of 11 claims (18%) could not be verified: the July 2026 token unlock figure (claim_findings[0]), which is now past and not in the cited source, and the Sam Bankman-Fried investor claim (claim_findings[2]), which the cited source does not mention. Several other claims are only partly supported, including the insider allocation split (claim_findings[1]) and Spain and Portugal 'bans' that were temporary suspensions (claim_findings[5], [6]). The page also omits two material 2025 enforcement actions, in the Philippines and Thailand (omission_findings[0], [1]), so it is judged more strictly than the claim percentage alone would suggest.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"Two material omissions (Philippines cease and desist, October 2025; Thailand order, November 2025) leave out recent enforcement on a page whose central subject is regulatory action. The 18% claim-level rate understates this, so the page is judged in the significant band. The penalty is kept at the low end because no claim was refuted, the subject status does not contradict the page, and reviewer confidence is moderate."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}