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 · Garden
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464267163
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T22:53:49.153Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T22:53:51.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T22:53:51.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4j54prLEMqSGKa8A5jUtDREz3E6X4fhtD2Coqqfri9Mi
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1946 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d2efd5cdd48c4a7fbb2e79bca5992aed","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T22:53:48.916Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"af469430-2d96-4ad7-80a1-b893bf5d3479","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"garden","prev_score":26,"reason":"Of 8 checked claims, none were disputed outright and 2 were unverifiable (claim_findings[6], [7]: Ren/Alameda ownership and the December 2023 launch date), which is 25% on its own. The October 2025 incident and the forensic attribution match their sources (claim_findings[3], [4]), though the forensic report is a company-sponsored press release. The page does not mention a second exploit in July 2026 (about $450,000 drained from HTLC contracts, app paused), which the review rates critical and which contradicts the page's statement that the HTLC layer was unaffected, so the verdict is set by the significant band. The Companies House number appears to belong to an unrelated company (claim_findings[0]), and the reviewer's confidence is moderate (0.55) with several sources unfetched, so the penalty sits in the middle of the band and the page is not delisted.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"claim_findings alone give 25% (2 unverifiable of 8, none blocked), the minor band. But omission_findings[0] is critical and subject_status.contradicts_page is true: a second exploit in July 2026 (about $450K from HTLC contracts, app paused) is absent, and it touches the layer the page calls unaffected. That moves the judgement to the significant band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}