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_approve · SafeW Technology Co. Ltd. (SafeW Messaging App)
- Sequence
- #9
- Score
- 50 → 50 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465259121
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-04T09:54:44.176Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-04T09:55:13.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-04T09:55:13.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CxJzgF9bGN4aLprmM79tBKoYVNq4DsDP5Wgasjxuwnez
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1247 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b96301bf4952ba8137a3b04f97c16fa4","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-04T09:54:43.833Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"549c8914-6b37-43af-b419-1249946871d6","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":50,"page_slug":"safew-technology-co-ltd-safew-messaging-app","prev_score":50,"reason":"Four of the five checked claims were confirmed, three of them against the US Treasury press release (claim_findings[0-2]). The other, the UK sanctions claim in claim_findings[3], matched secondary reporting. One claim, the Secret Service freeze and Elliptic figures, was only partially supported because part of it was not fetched (claim_findings[4]). None were disputed or unverifiable, so the disputed share is 0%. The OFAC sanction status is already on the page, and the review found no omissions. Open coverage gaps are medium or low priority and suggest expansion only.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":9,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}