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 · Donald Basile
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 4 → 4 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443511375
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T03:36:41.668Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3VPFK6gLwfxFEpNttkWEf3m1YT41dWndbXKd8pAmCWq5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1687 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:36:41.373Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"b48adfb8-e5cd-4d76-b81b-4b8cad81f371","new_score":4,"page_slug":"donald-basile","prev_score":4,"reason":"The reviewer checked 49 claims and found the page's central content — the April 2026 SEC civil fraud complaint against Basile, its specific dollar figures, statutory charges, requested relief, and the 2022 private lawsuits — fully supported by the SEC's own litigation release and independent reporting (claim_findings[1]-[15], [22]-[28]). Only 6.1% of claims were disputed, below the threshold for any score penalty. Two items, however, deserve reader attention even though they don't move the overall verdict: claim_findings[32] found the page's description of Basile as a Fusion-io 'co-founder' is disputed by independent sources, which credit two other individuals as founders and describe Basile joining about a year later as chairman then CEO; and claim_findings[22] found that the page's litigation section, while technically accurate in aggregate, is structured in a way that could lead a reader to believe Basile was personally sued in the Jonna Michigan case, when the original complaint in that case did not name him individually (he is a named defendant only in the separate Assofi California case). Both issues are corrigible edits rather than credibility-undermining errors, and none of the reviewer's six coverage gaps were flagged high priority, so they support future page expansion rather than an adverse verdict now.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}