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 · Michael James Bostelle
- Sequence
- #7
- Score
- 33 → 33 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464451656
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:51:59.179Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:52:20.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:52:20.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DrwsW37KuEZpVQVvLuBnMmHCnqjA4eug1i9v8HtjeKV1
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1357 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fb1380ee47de7b55178069f15aca4a92","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:51:58.892Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1667,"investigation_id":"54db7c0a-a7cc-4771-9b97-e13d0bb9e073","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":33,"page_slug":"michael-james-bostelle","prev_score":33,"reason":"The core allegations (charges, defendants, scheme dates, revenue, company count, search dates and device count) were confirmed against the DOJ release and Reuters (claim_findings[0-3]). One of six claims (about 17%) could not be verified: the forfeiture correction note in claim_findings[5], whose source the reviewer did not fetch. That note is low-severity and concerns content already removed from the page. The reviewer also found the two correction sections (sections 3 and 4) to be editorial meta-commentary that should be dropped, and that the page omits the Oct 1 grand jury return date, a minor omission. The minor-issues band applies, with a small penalty because the central claims hold up.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}