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 · Madlads
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 75 → 65 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423953168
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-03T04:20:57.378Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7q4vYEmzfPj4rohSpJJrPwFaGk2Qy6D2QYsFt8Q5jfX2
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1533 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-03T04:20:57.097Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"42e6f3f7-8b37-4208-b87b-af8d856cb498","new_score":65,"page_slug":"madlads","prev_score":75,"reason":"The page is substantially accurate across 27 checked claims, with 20 confirmed and 4 partially supported — no claims were outright disputed. The most significant issue is claim_findings[16], where the assertion that Mad Lads 'briefly flipped all collections on both Solana and Ethereum' is overstated; multiple sources place it at No. 2 across chains, not No. 1. Secondary issues include an inconsistent percentage figure in claim_findings[24] (the page states 88% of operating funds lost in the FTX collapse; a Tier 1 TechCrunch source cites 80%), and a citation quality problem identified in coverage_gaps[5] where the Cointelegraph FTX court-approval article — which returns 404 — is incorrectly used as the source for Yver's departure date and the FTX collapse losses across multiple timeline entries. Three cited URLs exhibit link rot but the underlying facts are independently corroborated. An unmentioned material regulatory event (CySEC fine) represents a medium-priority expansion gap. Revision should correct the 'flipped all collections' characterization, reconcile the operating-funds percentage with the Tier 1 source, and replace misattributed citations in the timeline.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}