Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · BonkBot
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#5
Score
54 → 49 (-5)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
423942047
Off-chain at
2026-06-03T03:06:56.537Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
JB6k3K79bGrE8cnCDY5vwbCL53R3UMzfn2zPBpSLvXgk
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1627 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-03T03:06:56.377Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"691f4a75-e5d0-4cc7-a668-7a3042eef2ba","new_score":49,"page_slug":"bonkbot","prev_score":54,"reason":"The two targeted corrections — Triple Spice AG as legal operator (claim_findings[26], verified against Swiss commercial registries at Tier 1) and 'a portion burned' replacing the prior '20% burned' claim (claim_findings[7], confirmed accurate by BONK DAO documentation) — are both independently verified and hold up. The disputed_pct of 12.1% is driven by a single item: the summary phrasing 'purchasing and burning BONK tokens' (claim_findings[2]) implies a higher burn rate than the documented 10% of purchased BONK; this is a minor editorial issue in the lead paragraph only, as the section-level language is already accurate. The most substantive editorial defect is an internal inconsistency in the fee section: the $6.33M annualized figure (claim_findings[19], marked stale) is contradicted by the adjacent $4.35M monthly claim in the same paragraph and by DeFiLlama quarterly data showing declining revenue through 2025. Volume and user figures in the summary and market-position section reflect mid-2025 peak data that has since been revised downward on the BonkBot homepage. A light revision to correct the annualized fee inconsistency, update volume figures, and sharpen the summary burn language is warranted; no structural concerns or core allegations are in dispute.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}