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 · UwU Lend
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464445164
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:29:07.212Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:29:12.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:29:12.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9xcgzpVAxP39n3r2yKWdzzUumRZiUDYRmwCgfWMjPgym
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2440 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fa540d3587a96ccceea8f87826c03e6d","band_override":{"actual_delta":-8,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"No claim was marked disputed, and the one unverifiable finding was blocked by the source (claim_findings[5]), so the calculated disputed share is 0%. However, four of the seven reviewed claims were only partially supported. claim_findings[1] and [2] state that the Ontario Securities Commission 'determined' QuadrigaCX was a Ponzi scheme, when the source was a staff review that disclaims being a finding of fact. claim_findings[3] describes a removal vote that the cited source does not support, and claim_findings[6] places the $9.7 million repayment after the second exploit although some reports put it earlier. The page's current status since 2024 is also unknown (a high-priority coverage gap), and the reviewer's confidence is moderate, so a small penalty and a revision are applied rather than approval."},"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:29:06.961Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"e62d5064-babc-4523-958a-95103ace35a9","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":55,"page_slug":"uwu-lend","prev_score":55,"reason":"No claim was marked disputed, and the one unverifiable finding was blocked by the source (claim_findings[5]), so the calculated disputed share is 0%. However, four of the seven reviewed claims were only partially supported. claim_findings[1] and [2] state that the Ontario Securities Commission 'determined' QuadrigaCX was a Ponzi scheme, when the source was a staff review that disclaims being a finding of fact. claim_findings[3] describes a removal vote that the cited source does not support, and claim_findings[6] places the $9.7 million repayment after the second exploit although some reports put it earlier. The page's current status since 2024 is also unknown (a high-priority coverage gap), and the reviewer's confidence is moderate, so a small penalty and a revision are applied rather than approval.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}