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 · y00ts
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 24 (-14)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443526323
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T16:05:38.341Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3Et3TBWFREM27Sj5XRnMCzaHPeGRP9ofx4NMBxgVTYnH
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1754 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T16:05:37.848Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"21555629-b4a7-4d86-852e-6fd2fa5d4799","new_score":24,"page_slug":"y00ts","prev_score":38,"reason":"Independent verification confirms 18 of 28 claims on this page, including the core migration history, the Polygon grant and its return, and the 2025 resignation and wallet incident (e.g. claim_findings[0], [8], [11], [19], [20]). Three claims are disputed: a quote about Polygon being 'a mistake' is attributed to research analyst Steven Zheng but, per the article the page itself cites, was actually said by a Twitter critic (claim_findings[12]); the page states DeGods' NFT floor price peaked 'above $37,000,' but the price trackers the page cites for that section put the real peak closer to $15,750-$23,201, which overstates the size of the project's later collapse (claim_findings[18]); and the DEGOD token launch is dated two weeks earlier than independently reported (claim_findings[27]). Two additional timeline dates use a first-of-month placeholder rather than the verified date, and one of those also mischaracterizes a bridge opening as a completed migration. At a 25% disputed-or-unverifiable rate, with moderate reviewer confidence (0.70), this falls in the band calling for revision rather than removal: the page's overall account holds up, but the misattributed quote and the overstated peak price should be corrected before the page is considered fully reliable, and the disputed rate sits close enough to the next threshold that further errors of this kind would warrant a harsher outcome.","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}