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 · Nomad
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464354354
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T04:05:01.733Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T04:05:08.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T04:05:08.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9LF5jULSYM55jUkTUwG9uxPZif8QnjaFF3DWS6bFVK9o
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1686 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"231e5d16c4d739c4a2cfec1a70e7b1a2","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T04:05:01.520Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.125,"investigation_id":"f9e685c5-2870-4b10-914f-b599ddbdbd9c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"nomad","prev_score":10,"reason":"One of eight claims was disputed (12.5%): claim_findings[0] says the FTC 'found' the company misrepresented its security, when the FTC only alleged this in a proposed consent order. Several other claims were partially supported because they present the proposed $37.5M FTC obligation as a completed recovery or a final settlement (claim_findings[1], [6], [7]). The core account of the exploit, the Mandiant clustering and the Gurevich indictment and arrest was confirmed. The page also omits a reported extradition of Gurevich (omission_findings[0]), which the reviewer could not verify against a primary source. The Quantstamp and audit claims were not independently checked.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"minor","from_band":"minor","reason":"The review reports a material omission: a reported late-October 2026 extradition of Gurevich to the US that the page does not mention. It is not yet confirmed by a primary source, so the verdict is held at the minor band that the claim percentage already implies, and not raised further."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}