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 · HAWK
- Sequence
- #1
- Score
- 6 → 6 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 418474319
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-08T21:07:35.309Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6x5K8UjSDurhNDLKVrsUXFQ4zLLV3KmVPZBrizyLGrux
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1052 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-05-08T21:07:35.237Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"1886dddd-5147-43bd-b488-adc01a12f32b","new_score":6,"page_slug":"hawk","prev_score":6,"reason":"The HAWK investigation page is substantially accurate on core facts — the launch date, market cap peak and collapse, 97%/3% supply concentration, lawsuit parties, April 2025 Lead Plaintiff appointment, and the SEC closure are all confirmed. The most significant error is stating the token traded on Raydium when the primary launch DEX was Meteora. The page's assertion that Welch was not named as a defendant is now stale, superseded by an amended complaint filed in November 2025 that adds her as a defendant for unjust enrichment. Two figures — the 15% transaction fee and the $3 million foundation fee — lack direct support in the cited primary sources and appear to originate from secondary or uncited sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}