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 · Rahul Ravinder Malhotra
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 50 → 35 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462049691
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T11:14:03.219Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T11:14:32.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T11:14:32.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BpJ8moMGEx1DPvkZowdTHzorcJvjJHFztg7mHaEEstcL
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1307 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"8ee2f4eb165f160dc888978ce6142f98","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T11:14:02.668Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.5,"investigation_id":"c9aeffa8-3c0e-48d1-93f8-1cef120ab8fe","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":35,"page_slug":"rahul-ravinder-malhotra","prev_score":50,"reason":"The review checked two claims. claim_findings[0], the June 2024 Prabhudas Lilladher appointment, was only partly supported because the cited article could not be opened and was confirmed second-hand. claim_findings[1], that no enforcement records exist, could not be confirmed because the page cites no source for it, although the reviewer's own searches found nothing adverse. That puts 1 of 2 claims (50%) in the unverified category, which falls in the significant-issues band. Because the sample is tiny, the reviewer's confidence is 0.5 and nothing contradicts the page, the penalty is set at the mild end of the band and the page is not delisted.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}