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_revise · Rocket Pool
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 74 → 64 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424040703
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-03T14:01:18.546Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- ASKzHAM8p7b2Ut992V2bA6wfLwqGpLQVjmSt7pprNKNq
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1468 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-03T14:01:18.100Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f98fda98-d71e-4aff-b43b-d55c0c97900b","new_score":64,"page_slug":"rocket-pool","prev_score":74,"reason":"The Rocket Pool page is broadly accurate with 24 of 34 reviewed claims confirmed and no claims directly disputed by a higher-tier source. The most significant issue is claim_findings[30], which describes the SEC-Consensys regulatory posture as an ongoing legal question as of mid-2026 — a stale characterization, as the SEC dropped all charges against Consensys on February 27, 2025. This stale claim appears in a high-severity section and represents a material change to the protocol's risk profile. Secondary concerns include a partially-supported governance claim (claim_findings[37]) where the page incorrectly states RPIPs use Snapshot voting when pDAO governance moved fully on-chain after the Houston upgrade, and a broken CoinTelegraph URL (claim_findings[25]) where the cited source returns 404, though the underlying content is independently corroborated. Four partially-supported and three unverifiable claims reflect minor imprecision on live metrics rather than factual errors. Revision is warranted to update the regulatory section, correct the governance description, and replace the broken citation.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}