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 · Router Protocol
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 10 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462038717
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T10:35:31.682Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T10:35:38.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T10:35:38.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2Jots518CP2x1QbS61K2pXsEMph3mCGbLVwKHXzbBeu4
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1419 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"5ee4482ff6cfc94b912d7bd4263528a7","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T10:35:31.397Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1818,"investigation_id":"c4977f48-cf34-4231-9b67-bdbcf603306b","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"router-protocol","prev_score":10,"reason":"Of 11 claims checked, 1 was disputed and 1 could not be verified (2 of 11, about 18%), which puts the page in the minor-issues band. The disputed claim (claim_findings[2]) is the section framing that the 2025 incidents were undisclosed until the shutdown, which conflicts with Router's own July 2025 incident report that the page itself cites; this is a critical-severity section, so the penalty sits toward the upper part of the band. The core facts (shutdown, 303M token burn, price drop, funding) were confirmed, and the smaller issues (the 'solver-related' label, 'led by Coinbase Ventures', the future-tense deadline) are correctable wording. The page also lacks a primary source for the February 2025 incident, which the review rates a high-priority coverage gap.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}