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 · Armstrong / Chindavanh / Rucker Crypto Robbery Gang
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 423927838
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-03T01:32:45.688Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4cGQvS9kE5KhufPYK8De1gNHEtUsBLcJ24EBQ6yStR5n
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1398 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-03T01:32:45.542Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"737ea2a1-f789-4291-8882-6941910ad163","new_score":0,"page_slug":"armstrong-chindavanh-rucker-crypto-robbery-gang","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer examined 32 distinct claims and found 28 confirmed, 3 partially supported, and 1 unverifiable — zero disputed. The disputed_pct is 6.25%, well within the 0-10% approval band. The three partially supported items (claim_findings[22], [23], [27]) are minor detail-level imprecisions: the '90-minute ordeal' duration is unconfirmed in primary sources (which say 'over an hour'), the 'pistol-whipped' description does not appear in the SFist investigative article though it appears in secondary coverage, and the 'December 21' burner phone creation date appears to be a source-level error reproduced from the page's cited article. None of these contradict more credible sources, and none affect the core factual record. The single unverifiable claim (claim_findings[30]) concerns boilerplate federal conspiracy indictment language, which the reviewer notes is standard and corroborated by secondary reporting. Reviewer confidence is 0.87. Coverage gaps are expansion opportunities, not accuracy failures.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}