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 · Pudgy Penguins
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 60 → 60 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 461972988
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T06:42:06.273Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T06:42:40.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T06:42:40.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9gYD9RbULe3iNzV5tYpCCsSS1xiaKMY9ue4GDtwmbeo5
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2195 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d7b83215bd2f2d54bc95f788ebb6b136","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T06:42:05.901Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"ae92bb22-893d-4824-9082-c17ae2347c33","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":60,"page_slug":"pudgy-penguins","prev_score":60,"reason":"About 25% of the checked claims could not be verified, which alone would indicate minor issues. Two things raise the verdict. The section alleging that CEO Luca Netz funded his 2022 purchase with earlier rug-pull proceeds cites sources that do not mention the Horlomite report, the 99% figure or the named projects (claim_findings[2]), and the ChainCatcher timeline link no longer supports its entry (claim_findings[3]). The page also omits Igloo's October 2026 announcement that its Abstract chain will shut down on December 15, 2026 (omission_findings[0]). The page already labels the allegations as unproven, and the lawsuit section and funding round were confirmed. The reviewer's confidence is moderate and several claims were not fetched, so the penalty sits at the low end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The claim percentage (2 of 8 unverifiable, 25%) falls in the minor band. It understates two problems. First, the omission_findings[0] material omission: Igloo announced on 2026-10-06 that its Abstract chain shuts down on December 15, 2026, and the page does not mention it. Second, the highest-severity section, which makes allegations about a named living person, cites two sources that do not contain the Horlomite, 99%, Spooky Boys or Cookies N' Kicks details (claim_findings[2], claim_findings[3]). The Abstract shutdown rests on a single outlet and the page is not contradicted on the brand itself, so the escalation is one band, to significant, and not further."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}