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.
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 5 → 5 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443515729
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T18:02:56.069Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- GGE6dcRDJQkB54XMgHvxg8aWfSSQfML3ZspR2j2DPDiR
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1289 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T18:02:55.762Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"ebfb4383-754a-4e4e-b2ae-1dbf8c1fccd0","new_score":5,"page_slug":"blockstream-jade-fake-firmware-phishing-campaign-august-2026","prev_score":5,"reason":"The page correctly and consistently distinguishes Blockstream-as-impersonated-victim from Blockstream-as-compromised-party, and its core factual scaffolding (the September 2025 alert, the October 2023 incident's data-exposure findings, the July 31 2026 Coldcard-unaffected statement, and DARKNAVY disclosure details) is well supported by primary sources. However, one sentence directly contradicts its own cited source and its own timeline by describing the October 2023 incident as 'physical mail' when the source describes email; the claim of a documented Jade-specific phishing 'second wave' in August 2026 is not actually supported by any cited source, which instead cover only the general Coldcard-driven sector surge; and several statistics and the Secure Boot v2 claim are attributed to sources that do not contain them, though the underlying facts are independently verifiable elsewhere.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}