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 · Hypurr NFTs
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 74 → 66 (-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}