Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Michele Spagnuolo (AlphaRaccoon)
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
12 → 12 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443510630
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T03:04:42.078Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
2Tpdaag6zmW8rd4Aw2Z66YjhTbpvYFrfU3H4gkP1wkw5
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1288 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:04:41.907Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"84bc6fb0-ce4d-4bbb-bd61-7b6e25e09d0f","new_score":12,"page_slug":"michele-spagnuolo-alpharaccoon","prev_score":12,"reason":"The page's core factual spine -- Spagnuolo's identity, the charges, dollar amounts, timeline, and money-laundering allegations -- is strongly corroborated by DOJ/CFTC materials (where accessible) and multiple independent, credible news outlets, with no identity-conflation risk detected between Spagnuolo and the AlphaRaccoon alias. However, the review found a clear internal chronological inconsistency (the alleged reactive username removal predates the community speculation it is said to respond to), a mischaracterization of the relative size of the Pope Leo XIV wager, and a systematic citation-mismatch problem in the 'Legal Precedent' section where three of four law-firm sources actually discuss a different case (Van Dyke) rather than Spagnuolo, including an apparently conflated claim about the 'Eddie Murphy Rule' being applied to Spagnuolo when independent analysis of his specific case does not support that.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}