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 · Tether
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 45 → 52 (+7)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514982
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:24.822Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BPEN6EYnvW3vUquNXZzUgvwU994syZFV5nbg1TfQm5Zy
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1442 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:24.700Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"0e3605d0-c29f-493c-89d4-6c756264a7eb","new_score":52,"page_slug":"tether","prev_score":45,"reason":"This is a severity-calibration adjudication. All six claim findings are supported — the page content is accurate and the page stands. The reviewer (confidence 0.82) finds the current score of 45/WARNING overstates risk because: the 2017 $31M treasury theft (claim_findings[2]) was external fraud suffered by Tether, not operator misconduct; both regulatory settlements (claim_findings[0] and [1]) were civil, paid without fraud convictions, and relate to a documented prior period (2016–2019); and the entity has since engaged KPMG for a full Big Four audit (claim_findings[4]), a material transparency step absent from the page. The page also carries a stale market-cap figure and a minor timeline date error (claim_findings[3] and [4]), but these are content refresh items that do not affect the calibration verdict. Balancing confirmed, now-partially-resolved regulatory violations against the absence of fraud convictions and recent transparency progress, a score of 52 in the CAUTIONARY band is the appropriate calibration. A positive delta of +7 is applied to move the score from 45 to 52.","score_delta":7,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}