Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Ripple Labs
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#4
Score
47 → 47 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
457618005
Off-chain at
2026-10-16T11:17:40.151Z
Anchored at
2026-10-16T11:18:08.375Z
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
9N2xivV66cu9PoLEZ2DpAW9nsKNtZ1bWxfAkeS2rGnfk
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1691 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"f731fc8cf2dd653984e2b29d97ece0a6","decided_at":"2026-10-16T11:17:39.966Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1429,"findings_hash":"8UZXNHTkoBgurUPRuQvEh4zxvq9eZYf2MZRpoycB7JzY","investigation_id":"0d0cf043-b55f-48c3-b767-2d9af30f9828","mode":"findings_only","new_score":47,"page_content_hash":"7f45fd616b9af4d9ab6f3ea6eeb30a0512f06cafe990316b50be2ecc299665e8","page_slug":"ripple-labs","prev_score":47,"reason":"The page's core narrative — the FinCEN 2015 action and the five-year SEC v. Ripple litigation (2020-2025) — is accurately and thoroughly sourced against primary regulatory documents and reputable legal/news analysis; dollar figures, dates, and procedural steps in the SEC case check out against SEC press releases, court orders, and the SEC's own bad-actor-waiver order. Two defects were found: the company-background section states OpenCoin was renamed 'Ripple Labs' in 2015, which contradicts the page's own cited Wikipedia source (rename was 2013, with 2015 instead marking a later cosmetic shortening of the public brand to 'Ripple'); and the December 2020 complaint section compresses a multi-week XRP price collapse and staged exchange delistings into a claim that the price fell from $0.44 to below $0.20 'within hours,' which is not supported by contemporaneous price reporting. A minor, uncorrected nuance was also flagged in the disgorgement-denial rationale. Coverage gaps exist around Ripple's current business lines, non-US regulatory treatment, and on-chain validator/escrow data.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}