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 · pump.fun
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 8 → 8 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443520508
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T11:29:28.720Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- B1MjTrwuSjPdRTzQrcfimQehPXsokhgwoeRPjq5CtcWt
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1353 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:29:28.608Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"cb4fa2c8-da5a-4b47-b070-7b61d3112ebd","new_score":8,"page_slug":"pumpdotfun","prev_score":8,"reason":"Core factual claims on the pump.fun page -- the exploit, the FCA warning, the class-action filings, the X-account hack, the Lazarus Group laundering, and the RICO complaint's loss estimates -- are well-corroborated by their cited sources and independent reporting. The main weaknesses are stale present-tense figures (cumulative revenue materially understated versus current reporting), an incomplete personal-legal-status arc for the May 2024 exploiter (the page stops at 'released on bail' and omits his later guilty plea, bail breach, and six-year sentence, all covered in the page's own sources_used), an unresolved contradiction in the Jito Labs litigation timeline (dismissed, then apparently reappearing in the Second Amended Complaint), a mischaracterization of the FCA action as a 'ban,' and an overstatement of the Solidus Labs 98.6% liquidity-collapse statistic as proven 'rug pulls or fraud.' All ten page sections are empty, so this review's claim surface was limited to the summary and timeline.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}