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 · Pickle Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 18 → 10 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443561823
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:39:37.251Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8eS5SHjcgNyw1WqKAr9imkuHWNi9n8kdrMGLBjbLebrY
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1505 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"0d45498bf787837d5dfac8fbde9b7226","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:39:37.039Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2,"investigation_id":"38261708-bdaf-4edf-8589-ff2c92a74fa2","new_score":10,"page_slug":"pickle","prev_score":18,"reason":"The page's central narrative -- the November 2020 Evil Jar exploit, its technical mechanism, the audit-scope gap, the shortfall in Cover Protocol compensation, the Yearn merger governance controversy, and the 2025 shutdown -- is independently confirmed by multiple sources (claim_findings[0,1,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,14]). The reviewer disputed only one claim: the page dates the Tornado Cash laundering of stolen funds to 2021, but the page's own cited source places that event around May 2022 (claim_findings[9]), a roughly 1.5-year date error that should be corrected. Two claims are unverifiable due to unreachable sources rather than contradicted evidence (claim_findings[2,13]), and two others are only partially supported due to figures that vary across sources -- a lower TVL peak than one outlet reported, and an unsourced 'first merger' superlative (claim_findings[3,11]). No coverage gap was flagged as high priority, so no expansion is required for approval, but the timeline error and the loosely sourced superlative should be fixed.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}