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 · DOJ Scam Center Disruption Week (June 2026)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 92 → 84 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443523756
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T04:15:35.279Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 58nWUFjBT4U4D6wvuktgwFPXcxcGZeJWQqz2PUbpUUeQ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1828 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T04:15:35.006Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"1722dd09-2aed-4d03-ad76-f8b58bdc91bb","new_score":84,"page_slug":"doj-scam-center-disruption-week-june-2026","prev_score":92,"reason":"Of 33 checked claims, 24 were confirmed and only 3 were disputed, giving a disputed rate of about 15% ((3 disputed + 2 unverifiable) / 33), which falls in the minor-issues range. All three disputed items are the same kind of defect: a timeline date that lands on the 1st of a month when the true, publicly documented date was 11 to 22 days later (Strike Force founding, Nov 12 not Nov 1; compound seizure, Nov 21 not Nov 1; charges unsealed, Apr 23 not Apr 1). These are date-precision errors, not disputes over the substance of what happened, and they sit alongside two other date claims on the same page that were correctly treated more leniently because their underlying sources were themselves vague about the exact day — showing the reviewer applied a consistent standard rather than over-penalizing an unavoidable rounding pattern. The page's two highest-stakes elements both check out: the legal status of the two named defendants is described accurately as alleged and unconvicted throughout, and the 'Disruption Week' framing is DOJ's own term rather than an invented grouping. A separate multinational operation's dollar figure and date were only found in secondary crypto-news coverage rather than the DOJ/IRS original, which is a real but moderate sourcing gap. A high-priority gap remains: the page's community-evidence record could not be checked in this review due to a data-access limitation, not because it was found to be empty.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}