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 · Michael James Bostelle
- Sequence
- #10
- Score
- 51 → 51 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465058117
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T21:57:26.326Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T21:57:48.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T21:57:48.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- F7qEAF6iHpa7TvUqzD45DAesYzDj9kRsuPdXLXJ89x4k
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1352 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"df85d53a3d107b09c815bbdb7d81cc35","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T21:57:26.028Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"54db7c0a-a7cc-4771-9b97-e13d0bb9e073","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":51,"page_slug":"michael-james-bostelle","prev_score":51,"reason":"Of six claims checked, four were confirmed against a Tier 1 Reuters copy (claim_findings[0], [1], [2], [4]) and none were disputed or unverifiable, so the disputed rate is 0%. Two claims (claim_findings[3], the Northern District of Ohio venue, and claim_findings[5], the 2019 start) are only partially supported because the cited sources were blocked or silent, and the page already hedges both. The one omission is minor (scheme end date and operation name), and the subject status matches the page, which says the case is pending. The high-priority gap, citing the primary DOJ release, calls for expansion and does not change the verdict, since the page itself says that release was not retrieved.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":10,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}