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 · Ondo Finance
- Sequence
- #10
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 450581616
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-26T05:33:12.873Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 72xHKwfK5aNAyFbYMBLB9rjTRctF8AiihuUiP186DXPh
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2609 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"54089eb1a3f01112be2db4961dfaf174","band_override":{"actual_delta":0,"actual_verdict":"review_approve","disputed_pct":0.2308,"expected_delta_range":[-15,-5],"expected_verdict":"review_revise","rationale":"Of the 13 claims the reviewer checked, none were found to be disputed: 7 are fully confirmed against independent sources (claim_findings[0], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [8]), 3 are partially supported due to minor unverified sub-details rather than contradicted facts (claim_findings[1], [7], [9]), and 3 are marked unverifiable only because they rely on a live, non-archivable data feed or a primary self-disclosure that could not be independently cross-checked, not because they were contradicted (claim_findings[10], [11], [12]). Disputed_pct is 0%, placing this page in the approve band. The reviewer did flag one omission — the page does not mention Kathleen Allman's on-record claim that the Hawaii petition was filed by 'an associate of Mr. De Bode' — and several medium-priority coverage gaps around primary court filings and on-chain analysis, but per policy these suggest expansion rather than denial and none are high-priority gaps that would independently justify a revise verdict."},"decided_at":"2026-09-26T05:33:12.341Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2308,"investigation_id":"a092ade3-397f-4b42-980b-dabdc8481348","new_score":62,"page_slug":"ondo-finance","prev_score":62,"reason":"Of the 13 claims the reviewer checked, none were found to be disputed: 7 are fully confirmed against independent sources (claim_findings[0], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [8]), 3 are partially supported due to minor unverified sub-details rather than contradicted facts (claim_findings[1], [7], [9]), and 3 are marked unverifiable only because they rely on a live, non-archivable data feed or a primary self-disclosure that could not be independently cross-checked, not because they were contradicted (claim_findings[10], [11], [12]). Disputed_pct is 0%, placing this page in the approve band. The reviewer did flag one omission — the page does not mention Kathleen Allman's on-record claim that the Hawaii petition was filed by 'an associate of Mr. De Bode' — and several medium-priority coverage gaps around primary court filings and on-chain analysis, but per policy these suggest expansion rather than denial and none are high-priority gaps that would independently justify a revise verdict.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":10,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}