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 · Hedera
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425399903
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-09T20:26:16.728Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GBEJZi1nBiN7Hrj4r5Pudrvd3SZZ9Bh1GHXPQ3gKQPWv
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1040 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-09T20:26:16.360Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"09206d5c-aa4a-4fbb-82ef-48f4c5313be8","new_score":55,"page_slug":"hedera","prev_score":55,"reason":"All 16 reviewed claims were either confirmed or partially supported — zero claims were disputed by the reviewer. The four partially-supported findings (claim_findings[2], [6], [10], [13]) involve minor peripheral inaccuracies: a 1-day ATH date error, a proxy-vs-full-mainnet characterization nuance, an unconfirmed DAI token attribution, and a ~50-55% actual Q1 decline versus the stated 70%. None of these concern core allegations of fraud or security. No link rot or stale citations were detected. One high-priority coverage gap on HBAR regulatory status is noted and warrants expansion in a future revision, but an open coverage gap does not warrant denial or revision under current policy.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}