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 · Google DeepMind
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 55 → 55 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 449571065
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-23T02:43:42.325Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 78sF8zyrcA3hGPxX4B6oshGLgiryPu5HFUYzttDHLrLb
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (952 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d3313c1dc90c326fe6504b09368bda30","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-23T02:43:41.857Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0909,"investigation_id":"b9bbaa78-e6f8-46f3-b03d-9be66d2c8150","new_score":55,"page_slug":"google-deepmind","prev_score":55,"reason":"Of the 11 claims the reviewer checked, 10 were confirmed against primary or multiple independent sources and 1 was marked unverifiable rather than disputed, for a disputed rate of 0%. No claim_findings entries were contradicted, and the reviewer found no link rot or stale critical citations. The remaining coverage gaps are low or medium priority and call for additional sourcing and future follow-up, not correction of existing content, so they do not change the outcome.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}