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 · KAT katana-network
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
5239 (-13)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443525205
Off-chain at
2026-08-27T10:26:43.834Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
Dg7NXSM5w46ai6RoqbFJdB1swCLDZNrsrt91ukquuTNv
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1415 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:26:43.420Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"c5646ee6-7870-4351-889b-edd75d2b32dd","new_score":39,"page_slug":"kat-katana-network","prev_score":52,"reason":"Of 45 fact-checked claims, 29 were confirmed, 5 partially supported, 5 unverifiable, and 6 disputed, for a disputed-plus-unverifiable rate of 24.4% — squarely in the minor-issues revision band. The confirmed findings cover the page's core narrative (incubation by Polygon Labs and GSR, tokenomics, TGE delay, security audits, exchange listings, and the absence of fraud or regulatory findings) and hold up well against tier-1 and tier-2 sources. The disputed items are financial-metric errors rather than core-credibility failures: the page misstates its own cited source's volume-to-market-cap ratio, reports a market cap that doesn't reconcile with its own stated price and supply, uses a placeholder timeline date that contradicts its own prose, and appears to carry a duplicate listing event. Five of the eleven findings driving the percentage are 'unverifiable' because a source fetch was blocked, not because anything was confirmed wrong, so the page is being sent back for correctable inaccuracies rather than denied for demonstrated unreliability.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}