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 · Dual Finance
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423652946
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-01T19:11:49.705Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Go9B5FTFru7LrMxCzytz15GcZrtXby9LmeaU6UYNVrhT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1183 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-01T19:11:49.098Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"fd88503e-2e62-405b-8106-3f18b22995cd","new_score":62,"page_slug":"dual-finance","prev_score":62,"reason":"The review confirmed 30 of 34 claims with independent sources; disputed_pct is 8.8%, within the 0-10% approve band. The single disputed finding (claim_findings[31]) concerns a timeline entry that misattributes a hackathon win to Riptide when it was actually the Solana Summer Camp — a minor factual error in a peripheral event rather than a core allegation. The two partially-supported findings (claim_findings[19] on max supply omission and claim_findings[27] on Manifest TVL causation) are material gaps but not contradictions of the page's core claims. Two high-priority coverage gaps flag that the page understates the audit-absence risk and lacks 2024-2026 protocol status sourcing; these warrant expansion but do not rise to the level of revision or denial given reviewer confidence of 0.82 and no disputed core allegations.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}