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_approve · AudiA6
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426522781
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-15T00:11:59.352Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5hC3voP47GKc3taBFD15uM2UFpZWAoKMXNGbc88bXGe
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1189 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-15T00:11:59.179Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"ea89f009-d5f5-4c59-9b8e-d7cd672c067a","new_score":0,"page_slug":"audia6","prev_score":0,"reason":"The review confirmed 23 of 30 claims across all core areas — arrest details, charges, BTC volumes, ransomware group attributions, seizure figures, and law enforcement coordination. The reviewer's disputed_pct of 6.7% falls in the approve band. One claim is formally disputed (claim_findings[13]): the page attributes the 'don't care' operator quote to a cocaine laundering inquiry, but three independent Tier 1 sources indicate that response was given to a question about stolen Bitcoin, with the cocaine inquiry drawing a different reply. This is a factual error in an evidentiary anecdote, not a core allegation. A modest penalty of -5 is applied to reflect this mischaracterization and the absence of a direct DOJ complaint citation (the primary document returned HTTP 403), which is flagged as a high-priority coverage gap by the reviewer.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}