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.

Decision
review_revise · Shiba Inu (SHIB)
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
38 → 31 (-7)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443526308
Off-chain at
2026-08-27T15:08:41.400Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
6y4knXg2DB2XTzpyQuarLqLqkAYzVtAr6PyFVwvvhYLT
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2096 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T15:08:41.161Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"e95d1c25-6904-40c7-a5be-2d7e7dde9448","new_score":31,"page_slug":"shiba-inu","prev_score":38,"reason":"Recomputing from the review's own findings array (28 confirmed, 7 partially supported, 2 disputed, 4 unverifiable, 1 stale, 0 link rot, 42 total) gives a disputed_pct of (2+4)/42 = 14.3%, not the 12.5% stated in the review's summary block -- both values fall in the same 10-30% band, so the discrepancy does not change the verdict. The page's core claims hold up well: the token supply and burn arithmetic reconciles with live market data, and the September 2025 Shibarium bridge hack details and the February 2025 fraud allegations against Shytoshi Kusama were verified word-for-word against the page's own cited sources (claim_findings[3], [19], [15]). The two disputed findings are chronology errors rather than substantive misrepresentation: a timeline entry that merges and misdates the May 2021 Buterin donation and token-burn events into a single wrong date (claim_findings[9]), and an internally contradictory claim that Shibarium 'relaunched in August 2025 following' a hack the page itself dates to September 2025 (claim_findings[38]). A secondary concern is the widely repeated ~$1.14B Buterin donation figure, which is directionally correct but whose cited source may actually address a different figure entirely (claim_findings[6]). Most of the remaining flagged items are absence claims (no legal entity identified, no SEC/CFTC action, no lawsuit resolution) that the page already treats as unresolved, and a single stale finding on ETF status understates the subject's regulatory progress rather than overstating it. No coverage gaps were rated high priority, so no band-crossing adjustment applies; the findings support a modest, low-end penalty within the minor-issues band rather than escalation to significant-issues or denial.","score_delta":-7,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}