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 · Playsomo
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 60 → 60 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443518440
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T23:06:14.897Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4yV1yiCbKRvWjcioGwMchB4eEUTgqsw17W2YD8VCzaWQ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1434 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T23:06:14.644Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"f9353971-d133-410f-8c63-66d8926378d6","new_score":60,"page_slug":"playsomo","prev_score":60,"reason":"Of 15 factual claims checked, 12 were confirmed, 2 were partially supported on minor points, and only 1 could not be verified — none were disputed. That puts the disputed rate at 6.7%, well inside the approve range. The page's two central claims, the Animoca Brands acquisition and the Taj Tarsha/SDNY indictment (claim_findings[1], [8]), are both independently corroborated by primary sources. The one unresolved item, a pseudonymous social-media post alleging a link between Tarsha, Playsomo, and Animoca (claim_findings[2]), is handled correctly: the page presents it explicitly as an unsubstantiated, low-confidence allegation rather than fact, dedicates a section to explaining why it cannot be verified, and the independent reviewer likewise could not locate or confirm the underlying post. That is the responsible way to carry an unverified allegation about identifiable parties, and it does not count against the page. Two small date/framing imprecisions were found (claim_findings[13], the bond-release date off by one day) and do not rise to a level that changes the outcome.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}