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 · Grass
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 48 → 38 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423955020
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-03T04:33:06.706Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2b3havDBvqQ9qPViKNFPrwjrV1H6yCEwdu6XeGER7M3R
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1533 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-03T04:33:06.489Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"15fb8058-c157-4461-9cda-ebfef760c364","new_score":38,"page_slug":"grass","prev_score":48,"reason":"The review found a disputed_pct of 11.4%, placing this page in the minor-revision band. Both disputed claims (claim_findings[18] and claim_findings[30]) share the same underlying error: the $10M bridge round is dated April 2025 in both the funding section and the timeline, while all independent sources including Tier 1 Blockworks consistently record the announcement as October 2025, a six-month discrepancy. Additionally, the page understates the ANY.RUN malware sandbox findings (claim_findings[21]): the page attributes those flags solely to phishing impersonators, but multiple official Grass installer executables served from the files.getgrass.io subdomain (versions 4.26.3 through 5.2.0) received 'Malicious activity' verdicts — a meaningful distinction that affects user safety guidance. Three high-priority coverage gaps were identified: on-chain verification of self-reported network metrics, fuller disclosure of the ANY.RUN installer findings, and a more prominent caveat that all revenue figures are unaudited company self-reporting from token holder calls. The core business model, tokenomics, airdrop events, and funding narrative are broadly accurate and well-sourced.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}