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 · Everclear Protocol (formerly Connext)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 28 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443520885
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T12:07:03.248Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- J8aF4ypfBhWZcR2SfJCxgaZZtpjaq3k5adxqT337wVMT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1566 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T12:07:03.044Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"a3d3d9bd-c3d0-4cdd-9e1f-9cc811c73541","new_score":28,"page_slug":"everclear-protocol-formerly-connext","prev_score":28,"reason":"An independent review checked 40 factual claims on this page and found the core premise -- that Connext genuinely rebranded to Everclear in June 2024 under the same founders before shutting down in May 2026 -- is well supported by multiple independent news sources, with no evidence that incidents from one name were wrongly attributed to the other (claim_findings[0]). Only 3 of 40 claims were disputed (disputed_pct 7.5%, below the 10% threshold for any penalty), and all three involve funding totals or a single date that, where they err, understate rather than overstate how much money the project raised (claim_findings[11], [26], [35]). One dead link on a minor 2022 timeline citation was flagged, but the underlying fact was independently confirmed through a working alternate source (claim_findings[36]), and this falls outside the dispute count by design. The review's two high-priority coverage-gap suggestions -- adding independent on-chain corroboration for volume figures and reconciling the funding total -- describe useful future additions rather than a failure to verify what's currently on the page, so the page is approved as-is with those gaps noted for future expansion.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}