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_revise · Hypurr NFTs
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#5
Score
7466 (-8)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443520262
Off-chain at
2026-08-26T11:10:10.967Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
6NB4JmXHWbjQxYF5hmbjMnY3NX3mCPqff4nyryWJ4hCC
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1609 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:10:10.780Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"a11c7577-4338-477d-8f85-f61ec2de41f6","new_score":66,"page_slug":"hypurr-nfts","prev_score":74,"reason":"The page's core narrative is well corroborated: 10 of 16 claims were confirmed outright, and disputed_pct (disputed + unverifiable over total) is 6.25%, which on its own would support approval. The single disputed item, claim_findings[15], is a minor timeline date error where the page says the floor price settled on October 1, 2025 while its own cited article states September 29, 2025 - a self-citation mismatch rather than a disputed core allegation, so it does not carry the weight that would justify denial. However, coverage_gaps[0] flags a high-priority gap: all six narrative sections on the page are empty, leaving only a summary and timeline with no substantive analysis of the wallet-compromise mechanism, the Foundation's response, or collection legitimacy. Per review policy, a high-priority coverage gap pushes a page toward revision even when disputed_pct is low. The review also notes a recurring pattern of imprecise dates and figures across five partially_supported claims (claim_findings[8], [9], [12], [14]) - two fabricated day-level dates, a two-day discrepancy, and an inflated 24-hour volume figure - which, while not counted in disputed_pct, reinforces that the page needs a precision pass alongside expanding its missing sections.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}