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 · Arbitrum
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424357481
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-05T01:04:51.058Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2cAgXKBkmrPU6m8bbWput9pF6bn5nas2Bjc5g1TB2SkN
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1257 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-05T01:04:50.958Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"a59521f5-a756-44e4-ad30-984db58ac09b","new_score":62,"page_slug":"arbitrum","prev_score":62,"reason":"The Arbitrum investigation page is generally accurate and well-sourced for a complex multi-year subject. The most significant factual error is the Gaming Catalyst Program approval date, which the page places in mid-2023 (including a specific June 1, 2023 timeline entry) when all credible sources confirm it was approved in June 2024. There are also secondary issues: the claim that Harry Kalodner worked at Microsoft Research finds no corroboration in any source; the Series B amount of '$120M' is likely a combined A+B total rather than the Series B alone ($100M); the textbook co-authorship framing overstates the Goldfeder-Felten bilateral relationship given the book's five co-authors; and the AIP-1.05 rejection percentage of 83% is slightly understated (sources report approximately 84%). The KelpDAO-related legal claims (the most recent and complex material) are well-documented and accurately described.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}