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 · SuperFarm / SuperVerse
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 25 (-13)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443526696
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T17:08:28.581Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5QdEL1ymnYMzPgL3zyoFfBzPSgufsbtsi1tM9cMEJ6As
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2034 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T17:08:28.114Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"837d18d6-cdf0-4499-b78d-0482ce773ab1","new_score":25,"page_slug":"superfarm","prev_score":38,"reason":"An independent fact-check found 6 of this page's 27 sourced claims to be disputed or unverifiable (22.2%), which falls in the range calling for revision rather than approval or removal. The most significant problem is that the page describes MrBeast's audience at the time of the alleged 2021 token promotion as 'hundreds of millions' / 'over 300 million' subscribers (claim_findings[7]), when he had roughly 87 million subscribers in 2021 - his much larger 2026 audience appears to have been substituted for his 2021 audience, overstating the reach of the alleged conduct by 3-6x. The page also contradicts itself on the date of the token's price peak (claim_findings[12]: March 21 in the timeline vs. March 31 elsewhere on the same page), gives a founding year that conflicts with its own cited source (claim_findings[10]), and mis-dates a Senator Warren letter by three weeks (claim_findings[17]) as part of a broader pattern of suspiciously round, first-of-the-month timeline dates. Weighed against this, the page's central financial and on-chain claims held up under independent check: the all-time-high price and 97%+ decline, the ~1,900 ETH / 751-trade transaction pattern, the profit estimates, the CertiK audit results, and a token allocation table that correctly sums to 100% (claim_findings[0,3,4,5,22,23]). A high-priority coverage gap was also flagged - AVOID has not independently traced the on-chain wallet data underlying the core pump-and-dump allegation, relying on secondary reporting instead - which supports keeping the page in revision rather than clearing it outright, but does not by itself justify escalating beyond the disputed-claim band actually observed.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}