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.

Sequence
#3
Score
141 (-13)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443521911
Off-chain at
2026-08-26T19:07:26.041Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
DKBSgh8QciiL4TKVkFx5CdRe1ZMKHVEukq9BfA9aAtz7
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2143 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T19:07:25.632Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"2ee4c468-7034-4ecf-b715-a65cfdf55917","new_score":1,"page_slug":"faze-banks-ricky-bengtson-mlg-coin","prev_score":14,"reason":"The reviewer's claim_findings array (the internally consistent set of 49 items, not the summary block's inconsistent total of 50) shows a disputed_pct of about 12% (2 disputed + 4 unverifiable out of 49), which sits in the low end of the range that calls for revision rather than approval or denial. The most serious problem is claim_findings[19]: the page twice states that Bengtson accused Adin Ross of using the token community as 'exit liquidity,' but the underlying leaked chat text actually says the community dumped on Ross and used him as exit liquidity — the reverse. This reverses who is cast as culprit and who as victim in a quoted accusation against a named public figure, which is a more serious defect than an ordinary factual slip and it pushes the correction toward the higher end of the applicable penalty range. Additional but lower-severity issues include a timeline date given as March 1, 2025 for the coin's crash when multiple sources place it in late January/early February (claim_findings[48]), a February 2026 'esports legal journalists' analysis overstated as being by multiple journalists when it is one writer's blog post citing several causes beyond the scandal (claim_findings[31]), and Save the Kids collapse figures that don't match the page's own cited source (claim_findings[36]). The page's central sale/no-sale allegation against Bengtson still lacks independent on-chain forensic verification (coverage_gaps, high priority), but the page already discloses this gap in its own text rather than concealing it, so it is treated as a structural weakness warranting stronger disclosure rather than grounds for denial. The SEC/$LIBRA claim (claim_findings[33]) is correctly and clearly hedged and should not be weakened in any revision.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}