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 · Shido
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 59 → 59 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464298687
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T00:45:56.197Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T00:46:18.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T00:46:18.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6tFx5FnSh3NYbVSw3PCUvPQxVd6qspJ3zXyLxyoh6dLe
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1440 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fa39721fc29de5a752061ec4ccb23691","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:45:55.778Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.4545,"investigation_id":"b259e90f-71df-4447-a93f-7d6ff994de7d","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":59,"page_slug":"shido","prev_score":59,"reason":"Of 12 claims checked, 11 count toward the result (one was unreadable because its source blocked the reviewer). Five of those 11 were disputed or could not be verified, about 45%, which falls in the significant-issues band. The headline attribution to a serial hacker behind the OKX and Concentric Finance hacks is unsupported by any readable source (claim_findings[3] and [4]), and the single-transaction, atomic-sequence claim is overstated (claim_findings[2]). The core exploit facts (amount drained, mechanism, proceeds, funding trace) are confirmed, so the penalty sits in the lower half of the band. CoinGecko figures are also stale (claim_findings[6] and [7]). The reviewer's confidence is moderate (0.6) and no omissions or status contradictions were found.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":11,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}