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 · Sui
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 33 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426282290
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T21:40:25.707Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- oDiBiBmcxBKEVeP8F1njf49ATwRzhLDLs4rsTntwQ7m
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1162 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T21:40:25.516Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"5d6a6e3d-9ec3-45e6-8461-82efc3ea7707","new_score":33,"page_slug":"sui","prev_score":38,"reason":"The review confirmed 29 of 38 claims outright, with zero disputed findings. The 10.5% non-confirmed rate is composed of 4 unverifiable claims and 5 partially supported claims — none touching the page's core assertions. The unverifiables (claim_findings[3] on the exact 10:30 UTC exploit start time, claim_findings[31] on the $145M October unlock valuation, claim_findings[24] on Foundation conditionality wording, and claim_findings[25] on the absence of a public Foundation response to ZachXBT) are peripheral details that could not be confirmed but are not contradicted. The five partially supported claims involve minor characterization imprecisions rather than factual errors. Reviewer confidence is 0.82. A light revision pass to qualify these peripheral details is appropriate; no core claims require correction.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}