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 · Rahul Ravinder Malhotra
- Sequence
- #1
- Score
- 50 → 50 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462049686
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T11:14:02.974Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T11:14:31.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T11:14:31.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9HVt9FecbH2eosZQd1dR32ueC1b6VS22N84hvoJpqrNT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1145 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"8ee2f4eb165f160dc888978ce6142f98","decided_at":"2026-10-27T11:14:02.668Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.5,"findings_hash":"Gi7qXMZNt5UdCnk42b5a6YAf2xrs5f8LAEgwejhhXk7r","investigation_id":"c9aeffa8-3c0e-48d1-93f8-1cef120ab8fe","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":50,"page_content_hash":"9065efdbfe16d9ce2fd6a526d2c339c6012903396c58cb85254c00469a196d97","page_slug":"rahul-ravinder-malhotra","prev_score":50,"reason":"The page makes mostly negative claims (nothing found) and one positive biographical claim. The biographical claim matches a second-hand summary of the cited article, which I could not open. My own searches found no adverse information. The name-collision caveat is appropriate. Several negative claims have no cited sources.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"subject_status":"unknown","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}