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 · TexCat
- Sequence
- #8
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464112714
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T13:41:33.569Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T13:41:54.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T13:41:54.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CPTobZJNZWiwUeoAYnFaq3S1XFzAG2XhesobRsY1cwrw
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2271 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"dd09cbde9d5bd91b2601e665478602af","band_override":{"actual_delta":-8,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"No claim was marked disputed or unverifiable (the one blocked Blockspot finding, claim_findings[7], is excluded), so the percentage alone falls in the approve band. We moved up one band because three findings (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]) show the page's DEXT Score of 0/100 is out of date (now 75/100) and the summary wrongly calls it an audit score, and because claim_findings[4] shows current volume is below the quoted range. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority gap: no holder concentration, mint/freeze authority or liquidity-lock analysis. The core descriptive claims, the honeypot and mintable flags, and the absence of enforcement action were confirmed, and the project is still operating, so the penalty is small."},"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T13:41:33.336Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"No claim was marked disputed or unverifiable (the one blocked Blockspot finding, claim_findings[7], is excluded), so the percentage alone falls in the approve band. We moved up one band because three findings (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]) show the page's DEXT Score of 0/100 is out of date (now 75/100) and the summary wrongly calls it an audit score, and because claim_findings[4] shows current volume is below the quoted range. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority gap: no holder concentration, mint/freeze authority or liquidity-lock analysis. The core descriptive claims, the honeypot and mintable flags, and the absence of enforcement action were confirmed, and the project is still operating, so the penalty is small.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-8,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":8,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}