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
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457787382
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T21:28:24.563Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T21:28:56.899Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6AWPDcsRZGM1GcRGiQUsZM3E6peGkQaKoQ9adhE2Jmci
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1886 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"b00639cb8e1e0d3eeebe1f3dd91cc51f","decided_at":"2026-10-16T21:28:24.076Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1579,"findings_hash":"GCS4AbwZNYx3W5NrkVZwkJ28jTCEaPfqUfRXk4CtQPNJ","investigation_id":"db5d0bd1-e00a-4022-a5f9-e80dacf78503","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"4a407094b21e37555b88166df38ac6ddf85c70185b0c595fedcf3d009239358d","page_slug":"patrick-steven-yaroch-fbi-agent-crypto-theft","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative is well corroborated: Yaroch's identity, role, arrest/charge dates, the $925,426 recovery, the Suilend/Slush/Kraken mechanics, the ChatGPT query dates, the self-report sequence, and the judge/venue/case-number details all check out against NBC News, Protos, CoinDesk, Decrypt, CryptoTimes and affidavit text surfaced in secondary reporting. The most serious defect is sourcing, not narrative: the court-filing citation used four times across the page (two section source lists, sources_used, and a timeline source_url) points to an unrelated District of Nebraska document whose own archive timestamp predates the Yaroch complaint's filing — it cannot be the cited criminal complaint. A second, separate source (Blockonomi) has a mismatched archive snapshot pointing to an unrelated article. The page also misattributes Yaroch's system access to his later Counterintelligence and Espionage Division headquarters role, when its own timeline and the affidavit excerpts place the actual access and first transfers during his earlier Boston Field Office assignment, before his CED transfer. Finally, the page is now more than two months stale on case-status developments (possible plea/indictment) that I could not independently confirm.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}