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 · Clockwork
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 68 → 68 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424178322
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T05:14:50.585Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7XzF7dBkT3jZ6zbkcEnyaUGKPZXhhgfoxdVtHsPjzeXP
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1340 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T05:14:50.323Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"688a8c90-57d9-408f-82ea-822fbbe378bc","new_score":68,"page_slug":"clockwork","prev_score":68,"reason":"The reviewer found zero disputed claims across 21 checked items, yielding a disputed_pct of 5%, which falls in the approve band. All material claims — the $4M seed round, investor identities, hackathon win, shutdown date, and GitHub statistics — were confirmed by Tier 1 sources (CoinDesk, official Solana media, GitHub). The three partially_supported findings (claim_findings[1], claim_findings[7], claim_findings[8]) concern only the precision of a founding month and a minor title discrepancy between 'founder' and 'co-founder' across different publications; neither constitutes a factual error that undermines the page. The single unverifiable item (claim_findings[14]) covers a peripheral list of alternative products cited in the shutdown section and is not a core allegation. Link rot on CoinTelegraph and The Block does not affect the underlying claims, which are independently corroborated. Coverage gaps are all medium or low priority and suggest expansion rather than correction.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}