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 · EasyFi
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464446649
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:34:09.663Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:34:28.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:34:28.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2vNcgUH8ZDVMgyVx83w1iig778Ff4dM1nTSqEPKeUrkC
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1508 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"8a6c42d94e703f04cf5cdb2bf1374807","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:34:09.352Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3636,"investigation_id":"791df2de-5786-4056-a92a-9f5c584c9057","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":55,"page_slug":"easyfi","prev_score":55,"reason":"Four of ten reviewed claims (40%) were disputed or could not be verified. The core hack facts (April 19, 2021 date, roughly $81M loss, attacker addresses, compensation terms) were confirmed by CoinDesk, Halborn and Cointelegraph. The problems are claim_findings[9], a ZachXBT high-risk flag in the summary with no source, claim_findings[5], a Binance Smart Chain launch entry that has no source and conflicts with the page's own Polygon description, claim_findings[2], the 123 BTC figure and Ren Bridge route that were not found in the cited source, and claim_findings[6], a compensation date that is one day off. The penalty is kept in the lower half of the band because the reviewer's confidence is moderate (0.55) and the main allegations are supported. The reviewer found no shutdown or sanction, and the one omission (the token is still dormant in 2026) is minor.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}