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 · TexCat
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-14)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462040861
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T10:43:07.596Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T10:43:14.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T10:43:14.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EE2hiWZVHRJwF7gT5L3Tz1Lm6JfGXGBicxwxngeJ1AVe
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1535 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"f44a5098f49bc517a0805c67f414cb7b","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T10:43:07.282Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 8 claim findings, 1 could not be checked because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[5], Blockspot) and is left out, so 2 of 7 checked findings are disputed (about 29%). The disputes (claim_findings[2] and [3]) and the stale finding (claim_findings[1]) all stem from one error: the page gives the official pair a DEXT Score of 0/100, while DEXTools currently shows 76/100, and the summary wrongly calls that score an audit score. The page's other descriptive claims, its absence-of-adverse-events statement and its low-confidence Blockspot caveat held up, and the subject is still trading with no shutdown or exploit. Because the error is on the page's headline risk figure and a high-priority gap remains (no on-chain analysis of holders, mint/freeze authority, deployer or liquidity lock), the penalty sits at the upper end of the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-14,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}