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 · CREAM Lending
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 0 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443520498
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T11:25:09.258Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EN1swmPHvYDcY3TqA9WQH81wv5f2BfgNp5jiAo6PZetj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1564 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:25:08.729Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"3da751e1-b8be-425d-9938-6197061f36fb","new_score":0,"page_slug":"cream-lending","prev_score":10,"reason":"Independent fact-checking corroborated the substance of this page's hack narrative and timeline: 13 of 16 claims were confirmed and only 1 was disputed (claim_findings[15], a December 2025 all-time-low price point contradicted by current market data), putting disputed_pct at 6.25% — on its own, an approve-level result. But the review also found the page cites nothing: its source list is completely empty and all eight section bodies are blank, so every 'confirmed' verdict reflects the reviewer's own independent research rather than verification of anything the page itself points to (coverage_gaps[0] and coverage_gaps[1], both flagged high priority). Two further claims overstate the record: the summary's $185 million total loss figure undershoots both the page's own itemized incident amounts and the $192 million figure in the very source the page cites elsewhere (claim_findings[1]), and the statement that ZachXBT 'flagged the protocol and its founders' broadens an allegation that substantively names only co-founder Jeffrey Huang (claim_findings[2]). Because the content itself holds up well but the page has no traceable sourcing at all, this is sent back for revision rather than approved as-is.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}