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_approve · Scroll
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 58 (+16)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514742
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:11.661Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7RRfP2rr4V213c4PTthkWi1aCh6JfkAnnShRqDSA4mrm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1445 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:11.509Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"3b842216-f507-4ebb-bde7-38c82dbe8ff8","new_score":58,"page_slug":"scroll","prev_score":42,"reason":"This is a severity-calibration adjudication, not a content dispute. The reviewer found zero disputed claims (disputed_pct = 0%) and confirmed the page content is accurate. Scroll is a legitimate, credentialed Ethereum Layer 2 protocol backed by Polychain Capital and Bain Capital Crypto with $83M in documented VC funding. As established by claim_findings[4], no fraud, exit scam, or misappropriation of user funds exists in any source: the $50K gas fee overcharge was a documented manual configuration error and the Security Council dissolution (claim_findings[5]) was a cost-cutting response to ecosystem outflows, not governance capture. The WARNING band (score 42) requires elevated fraud or loss risk — none of the documented incidents meet that threshold. The CAUTIONARY band (score 58) is appropriate for a legitimate protocol with material operational caveats: a configuration error affecting 139K transactions, governance centralization concerns, and severe TVL decline. A positive delta of +16 moves the score to 58 to reflect this recalibration. The page remains published and accurate.","score_delta":16,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}