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 · Pokemon
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 85 → 85 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423925544
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-03T01:17:31.372Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7DACQDanwhhb68rGQGZjumK3RVKmjoJX84nsaNDb17p5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1054 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-03T01:17:31.284Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"ae175d81-1ef5-4db8-a3ab-49868a08fd36","new_score":85,"page_slug":"pokemon","prev_score":85,"reason":"The page's core factual claims are well-supported across multiple credible sources including official government advisories, Department of Justice press releases, and primary court records. The four partially-supported findings involve minor characterization issues (ownership structure omitting Creatures Inc., 'thousands' vs 'hundreds' of prototype cards, $171,000 listed price vs actual sale amount, and an 8-day date discrepancy in the Curcio arrest timeline) rather than substantive errors. No claims are disputed or unverifiable. A notable gap is the missing conviction outcome for the Curcio/Bondarchuk case, which page treats as still at the arrest stage when Curcio was subsequently convicted at trial.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}