Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
#3
Score
2828 (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}