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 · Polygon (POL)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 52 → 44 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425561309
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-10T14:11:53.314Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6Hdg64ZmV8ecNYJfXdf1T27UiRGzfQnBUYv45TdzhJPS
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1400 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-10T14:11:52.983Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"e1eee299-13f1-46e7-a2d8-249418ef628d","new_score":44,"page_slug":"polygon-pol","prev_score":52,"reason":"The page is substantially accurate — 14 of 23 claims are fully confirmed and no claims are outright disputed. However, claim_findings[6] (the SEC regulatory section) is materially stale: the SEC fully dismissed the Binance lawsuit with prejudice in May 2025, yet the page characterizes MATIC's unregistered-security allegation as an unresolved ongoing concern. Because the SEC section carries a 'high' severity rating, this staleness meaningfully misrepresents Polygon's current legal risk profile. Secondary issues include claim_findings[15] (the $1M operating loss attributed to Nailwal, when the figure originates from a third-party researcher), claim_findings[10] ('vision divergence' as Bjelic's stated reason, which is an unsupported editorial inference), and a citation mismatch in timeline[3] where the February 2023 layoff is backed by the February 2024 CoinDesk article URL. Three high-priority coverage gaps — regulatory status post-dismissal, TVL trajectory, and token distribution — also support revision rather than outright approval.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}