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 · Noman Saleem Telegram Influencer Impersonation Fraud
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465081686
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T23:21:14.884Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T23:22:04.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T23:22:04.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3uUFDXduSYv1dapLG3cTYdtVcZHpqbWazJx3TnNVHeCd
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1272 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"78fd4a733138534810c5d9908ea4689b","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T23:21:14.619Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"e24e8cb5-7311-4c01-b044-90c17ebee305","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":0,"page_slug":"noman-saleem-telegram-influencer-impersonation-fraud","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of seven claims reviewed, six were confirmed and none were disputed. The seventh (Queens and Levittown residence, claim_findings[5]) could not be checked because the DOJ source blocked the reviewer, so it is left out of the percentage and counts as a coverage limit, not a defect. The sentence, judge, plea date, scheme dates and the differing $1.4M and $1.8M figures all match reporting, and the page flags those discrepancies openly. The review found no omissions, and the page's account of the scheme's end and the conviction matches the subject status.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}