Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← 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.

Sequence
#3
Score
0 → 0 (-10)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
461976693
Off-chain at
2026-10-27T06:55:34.314Z
Anchored at
2026-10-27T06:55:49.000Z
Block time
2026-10-27T06:55:49.000Z

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
BGSmxGoAbCNxf8scsWUwJmjSQR5gqkGNyyq1h7vgXzgh
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1598 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"2bdd168bc63e35876fb92461381685e5","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T06:55:33.933Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"f1a778e3-6815-404c-b68d-418524eb9ca6","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"ai-dating-scam-network-dora-doni-romi-cluster","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core account (ten app names, 4,700 personas, 2.36 million messages, 25,000 users, Anthropic's bans and referral to Apple and Google) matches secondary coverage. Two of eight countable findings (claim_findings[2], [3]) are unverifiable: the exact April 1-14 window dates and the per-app Google Play removal dates are not in the cited sources. That puts the disputed share at 25%. Separately, claim_findings[6] cites a Daily Guardian page that now returns 404, claim_findings[8] presents a single example feed's 75% AI-profile figure as a general statistic, and two high-priority coverage gaps remain open (primary-source verification and current takedown status). Two of ten findings were excluded because the Anthropic report could not be read, so the primary source is largely unchecked. The reviewer's confidence is low, so the penalty is kept at the lower end of the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-10,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}