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 · HAWK
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 6 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 418474322
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-08T21:07:35.400Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Bm282pTzrYe9BBuETjqgwSUQDKut6oFVQNwzAJvBS3be
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1356 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-05-08T21:07:35.237Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"1886dddd-5147-43bd-b488-adc01a12f32b","new_score":0,"page_slug":"hawk","prev_score":6,"reason":"The page is substantially accurate on all core facts — the launch date, market cap trajectory, 97/3% supply split, lawsuit parties, and SEC closure are all confirmed by Tier 1 sources. However, claim_findings[17] is actively disputed: the page states the token traded primarily on Raydium DEX, while Fortune and DL News (both Tier 1) consistently identify Meteora as the launch DEX. claim_findings[20] is stale: the page asserts Welch was not named as a defendant, but a November 2025 amended complaint added her as a defendant — this presents materially incorrect legal status to a current reader. Two additional findings (claim_findings[14] and claim_findings[15]) are unverifiable against cited primary sources — the 15% fee figure and the HAWK vanity wallet funding detail lack primary-source backing. The disputed_pct of 12% lands in the lower end of the minor-issues band, but the stale defendant-status claim and the wrong DEX assertion are both in high-visibility sections, warranting a moderate penalty.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}