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 · Dogecoin
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 74 → 74 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457651559
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T13:18:29.111Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T13:18:51.213Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7M8TY4DRKD2Nj85mVdpkWAoMUjVBvkJTsVjh6DkYZ64e
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2107 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"79764b130937a281bd0a98170945ade1","decided_at":"2026-10-16T13:18:28.854Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2353,"findings_hash":"6zXJzm391EKT2eN594vpEsWgUSwzm3XBCYo5MHmmVQas","investigation_id":"273f081e-aa60-4d3c-85b9-351f03990bc3","mode":"findings_only","new_score":74,"page_content_hash":"4a72fd7c43113c4c1fe2681cd0604bbbca7c49f984d02fc7c92935e30b372b27","page_slug":"dogecoin","prev_score":74,"reason":"The page is largely well-sourced and accurate on Dogecoin's founding history, the Musk-related lawsuit and its outcome, the Elliptic illicit-use figures, and its charitable track record — all of which checked out against the cited sources or independent corroboration. Two material errors were found: the Regulatory Status section misattributes the Cboe-listed DOJE ticker to Bitwise when it actually belongs to REX-Osprey's separate ETF (Bitwise's own fund trades as BWOW on NYSE Arca), and the lawsuit-dismissal timeline date (2024-08-31) is the citing article's publish date rather than the actual August 29, 2024 ruling date. A minor overstatement was found in the Co-founder Criticism section, which quotes Palmer as calling crypto a 'Ponzi scheme' via an ellipsis construction when that phrase is CBS's own characterization, not Palmer's words. The specific whale-concentration figures (149 wallets / 108.5B DOGE) could not be verified because the cited AInvest source blocks automated access and has no archived snapshot, though the general concentration level and the separately-stated Robinhood 17.9% figure are corroborated elsewhere. No accepted community submissions existed to review. The most significant coverage gap is the absence of any discussion of the Dogecoin Foundation's own governance and insider ties (Musk's representative and Vitalik Buterin on its board, House of Doge's Nasdaq listing plans), which is directly relevant to the page's core risk thesis about outsized insider influence.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}