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 · Solana Summit Toronto
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 82 → 82 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 448203143
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-18T21:20:46.679Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3yyPPWmtXr7y9AvoCbRbwPHDJUdNKjsyqoeBr9P9o8XN
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2317 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"a16b845334833ef4055a39cfb3b27f8f","band_override":{"actual_delta":0,"actual_verdict":"review_approve","disputed_pct":0.1818,"expected_delta_range":[-15,-5],"expected_verdict":"review_revise","rationale":"Of the 11 individual claims checked, only 1 was disputed (about 9%), well within the approve range. The disputed item is minor: the page says grant funding is paid in USDC when the live grant listing actually shows USDG, though the correct dollar amount ($10,000) is unaffected (claim_findings[6]). Two related findings flag a dead citation link for a Consensus 2025 sponsorship claim that remains plausible but unverifiable through that specific source (claim_findings[7], claim_findings[8]), and one attendance figure (1,300+) could not be traced to any source (claim_findings[4]). All core claims — event dates and venue, organizer identity and Solana Foundation affiliation, free/approval-based registration, sponsor listings, and the absence of any fraud or scam reports — were independently confirmed against official, tier-1 sources."},"decided_at":"2026-09-18T21:20:46.191Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1818,"investigation_id":"289a7125-d648-4eec-9039-387a352a0e36","new_score":82,"page_slug":"solana-summit-toronto","prev_score":82,"reason":"Of the 11 individual claims checked, only 1 was disputed (about 9%), well within the approve range. The disputed item is minor: the page says grant funding is paid in USDC when the live grant listing actually shows USDG, though the correct dollar amount ($10,000) is unaffected (claim_findings[6]). Two related findings flag a dead citation link for a Consensus 2025 sponsorship claim that remains plausible but unverifiable through that specific source (claim_findings[7], claim_findings[8]), and one attendance figure (1,300+) could not be traced to any source (claim_findings[4]). All core claims — event dates and venue, organizer identity and Solana Foundation affiliation, free/approval-based registration, sponsor listings, and the absence of any fraud or scam reports — were independently confirmed against official, tier-1 sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}