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
2210 (-12)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443520799
Off-chain at
2026-08-26T11:45:54.611Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
CN3zyJqmZ8ox7JJ87PnXZuZ1qMej36K4jxPL6dri3WMH
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1677 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:45:54.371Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f5223fd4-de48-4448-ab1f-23ef5554ee9c","new_score":10,"page_slug":"best-wallet-best-token-presale","prev_score":22,"reason":"The review confirms the page's central claims: the FCA's March 2025 unauthorised-firm warning (claim_findings[1], [7], [8]) was verified directly against the FCA's own site, and the Nov 28, 2025 exchange-listing price collapse (claim_findings[3]) is corroborated in detail. But a handful of specific claims do not hold up as cited. The tokenomics breakdown (claim_findings[21]) is disputed: the page's 35/25/10/8% figures sum to only 78%, omitting three categories that account for the remaining 22%, which creates a misleading impression of an unexplained allocation gap rather than the actual, fully-accounted breakdown. Two named individuals, YouTube promoters Clay Bro and Austin Hilton, are not actually contained in either source cited for that claim (claim_findings[35]) — a citation error involving real people that should be fixed or removed. The Coinsult audit claim rests on no retrievable audit report from Coinsult itself (claim_findings[38]), only secondary summaries. The bulk of the 12 unverifiable findings, however, are lower-severity: raise totals and adoption figures are corroborated only by promotional or aggregator-style presale media rather than contradicted by better evidence, which reflects a known limitation of this content category rather than a factual failure of the page.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}