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_revise · Unibot
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 42 → 58 (+16)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443508870
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-18T21:01:32.233Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BheeKn5cGhTSC8vqJxZvMMSehAu3v2nDxS2nnNj4iqse
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1993 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-18T21:01:31.896Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"5908d54b-dd44-42e9-b102-da2fe84998b1","new_score":58,"page_slug":"unibot","prev_score":42,"reason":"Content accuracy holds up well -- 7 of 10 claims confirmed outright, disputed_pct is only 0.1, and no unhedged criminal allegations were found (claim_findings[7] correctly frames the March 2024 dev split as a mutual, unresolved dispute rather than adjudicated fraud). The score is the problem: the page's own rubric (calibration.scoring_instruction) states that 'suffered' incidents cap an entity at CAUTIONARY (50-69), yet the current score of 42 sits in WARNING, which per that same rubric implies own-conduct fraud or negligence. Both major incidents -- the October 2023 router exploit (calibration_assessment.incident_attributions[0], attribution 'b': external attacker, fully reimbursed at $1.78M) and the March 2024 dev-team split (incident_attributions[1], attribution 'c': mutual unresolved accusations between two pseudonymous factions) -- are suffered/third-party events, not own-fraud. The current WARNING score conflates being hacked and having an internal governance dispute with entity misconduct, which the evidence does not support; 58 (upper-CAUTIONARY) better reflects a project that responded responsibly to victimization but still carries real, unresolved governance and staleness risk. Notes: (Correct or source the timeline[8] '32,000 peak daily active users' figure -- no source located supports it, and independent reporting places Unibot's DAU all-time high at 3,151-4,730, roughly an order of magnitude lower (claim_findings[9]).) (Adjust timeline[7] to reflect that Unisol X launched March 14, 2024, three days after the March 11 split announcement, rather than compressing both into the same date (claim_findings[8]).)","score_delta":16,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}