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 · Across Protocol
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 46 → 46 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464378533
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:31:04.854Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:31:34.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:31:34.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AC69V9gUJnp1dRXR9SBuzu38GCvZUGDMyy451Ms5kGLY
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1870 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"7958b7cad0958e3e09b3212684cdbf4e","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:31:04.618Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1667,"investigation_id":"305f7d20-9921-4672-ba87-90bed081d299","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":46,"page_slug":"across-protocol","prev_score":46,"reason":"Of the 7 claims reviewed, 1 could not be scored because the source blocked the reviewer, leaving 6. Two of those 6 were not upheld (about 33%): the expectation that conversion would open by July 2026 is out of date (claim_findings[4]), and the April 2, 2026 dissolution vote date could not be confirmed (claim_findings[5]). The page also omits a material fact, the reported January 8, 2027 ACX deprecation deadline, and its description of the project's status is contradicted by later reporting (subject_status, omission_findings[0]). The core allegations and the March 2026 proposal terms match the sources, so the penalty is moderate. The 97% approval figure is not in the cited article (claim_findings[0]). Reviewer confidence is low and the update rests on a single lower-tier source, so the penalty is kept at the mild end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The review reports a material omission (the January 8, 2027 ACX deprecation deadline) and that subject status contradicts the page (operations reportedly moved to Across, Inc.). The page does not mention either, so the judgement uses the significant band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}