Audit log

Every state-changing event for 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1publishby system:backfill

   2026-06-16 12:24:19Z
   Score: ? → ? (no score change)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 426,851,719

   sig

   4tM9vwSSY5rU…BkqqKVxEcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   GxvMTQXBFKwB…fd2V2WGacopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (6529 B) ▸

   {"actor":"system:backfill","investigation_id":"b49b74f3-c3d5-4876-8cfd-a60919377829","kind":"publish","page_slug":"0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","published_at":"2026-06-16T12:24:19.584Z","sequence_num":1,"snapshot":{"content_type":"investigation","entity_name":"0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","sections":[{"content":"The address 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833 is classified by Etherscan as an externally owned account (EOA), meaning it is a standard user-controlled wallet rather than a deployed smart contract or token contract. As of June 2026, the address holds a zero ETH balance and no token holdings across any of the 33 chains supported by Etherscan's multi-chain view. The address has recorded exactly two transactions, both incoming transfers of approximately zero ETH value, both originating from address 0xF17ab2eE...470542676 and both confirmed on May 27, 2026 (blocks 25186125 and 25186132). No outgoing transactions, internal transactions, contract interactions, or token transfers are recorded. No ENS domain name is associated with the address.","heading":"Address Type and On-Chain Profile","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Address 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"}]},{"content":"No scam or abuse reports for this address were identified on ChainAbuse, a community-powered reporting platform operated by TRM Labs. Open-web searches combining the address with terms such as 'scam', 'fraud', and 'hack' returned no results referencing this specific address. Etherscan's community comment section shows no user-submitted fraud warnings or negative labels attached to the address. The absence of reports does not constitute a clearance, particularly given the address's extremely limited history which makes behavioral assessment impossible.","heading":"Scam and Abuse Report Status","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"ChainAbuse address lookup","type":"community_report","url":"https://www.chainabuse.com/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Address comments and labels","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833#comments"}]},{"content":"Both recorded transactions originated from the same sender address (0xF17ab2eE...470542676 — partial hash as displayed by Etherscan). The full sender address could not be verified through open-web sources as of this investigation. The two transactions occurred within the same block range (blocks 25186125 and 25186132) on the same date, May 27, 2026, suggesting a coordinated or scripted funding event. The near-zero ETH value of each transfer is consistent with patterns used to initialize wallets for subsequent activity, test address liveness, or establish on-chain presence prior to further operations. No further activity has been recorded since those two transactions.","heading":"Source Address and Funding Pattern","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Transaction history for 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"}]},{"content":"No association with any known protocol, exchange, DeFi project, individual, or named entity has been identified. Etherscan carries no name tag or label for this address. No results linking this address to any token project, NFT collection, DAO, or known exploit were found across open-web searches. The address does not appear in SEC EDGAR filings, OFAC sanctions lists, or any indexed court or regulatory record based on searches conducted for this investigation.","heading":"Entity and Protocol Association","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Address 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"}]},{"content":"This address was created or first active in May 2026 and has a two-transaction history with zero economic throughput. The extremely limited on-chain footprint means behavioral risk signals — such as interaction with flagged contracts, mixer usage, bridge patterns, or token drainer associations — cannot be assessed. The trust score of 45 reflects deep uncertainty rather than confirmed risk or confirmed safety. This investigation should be revisited if the address becomes active with outgoing transactions or token movements.","heading":"Research Limitations","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Address 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"}]}],"sources_used":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Address 0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"},{"credibility":2,"name":"ChainAbuse address lookup","type":"community_report","url":"https://www.chainabuse.com/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Etherscan: Address comments section","type":"on_chain","url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833#comments"}],"summary":"0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833 is an Ethereum externally owned account (EOA) with minimal on-chain activity, consisting of exactly two zero-value incoming transfers from the same source address in May 2026. No name tags, entity labels, scam reports, or regulatory flags have been identified for this address across Etherscan, ChainAbuse, or open-web sources as of June 2026.","timeline":[{"date":"2026-05-27","event":"Address receives first of two near-zero ETH transfers from 0xF17ab2eE...470542676 (block 25186125)","source":"Etherscan","source_url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"},{"date":"2026-05-27","event":"Address receives second near-zero ETH transfer from the same source address (block 25186132)","source":"Etherscan","source_url":"https://etherscan.io/address/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"},{"date":"2026-06-16","event":"AVOID.NET investigation conducted; address shows zero balance, no outgoing activity, no scam reports","source":"AVOID.NET investigation","source_url":"https://www.avoid.net/0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833"}]},"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision fb71b28c-79fc-4385-b507-6f15798671fbcopy
2. #2reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-27 10:52:34Z
   Score: 45 → 45 (no score change)
   This page's on-chain factual claims (EOA status, zero balance, exactly two zero-value inbound transfers from a single sender, exact block numbers, no ENS, no further activity) were independently corroborated via Blockscout and Ethplorer and matched the page precisely, including a live re-check over two months after the page's investigation date that showed no change. Unlike another page flagged in this review corpus, this page does not attribute the address to any named individual, entity, or incident -- its central assertion is an absence of attribution, which held up under a direct SEC EDGAR full-text search (zero hits) and general web searches, though the ChainAbuse and Etherscan-comments sub-claims could not be independently checked due to blocked or unrendered fetches. The trust score of 45 is not accompanied by any visible scoring rationale relative to this near-blank evidentiary record.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,525,505

   sig

   JGSUdXc7hNAp…r3afHP2wcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   3eZG4SH7gUNG…JSobybNGcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1284 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:52:33.653Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"b49b74f3-c3d5-4876-8cfd-a60919377829","new_score":45,"page_slug":"0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","prev_score":45,"reason":"This page's on-chain factual claims (EOA status, zero balance, exactly two zero-value inbound transfers from a single sender, exact block numbers, no ENS, no further activity) were independently corroborated via Blockscout and Ethplorer and matched the page precisely, including a live re-check over two months after the page's investigation date that showed no change. Unlike another page flagged in this review corpus, this page does not attribute the address to any named individual, entity, or incident -- its central assertion is an absence of attribution, which held up under a direct SEC EDGAR full-text search (zero hits) and general web searches, though the ChainAbuse and Etherscan-comments sub-claims could not be independently checked due to blocked or unrendered fetches. The trust score of 45 is not accompanied by any visible scoring rationale relative to this near-blank evidentiary record.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 0d5d900a-4a08-4a8d-84c7-709fdd23f31ccopy
3. #3review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-08-27 10:52:34Z
   Score: 45 → 37 (-8)
   The review's own summary block was miscomputed and is superseded here: of 21 checked claims, 0 were disputed, 15 confirmed, 1 partially supported, and 5 unverifiable, giving a disputed_pct of (0+5)/21 = 23.8% under the spec's formula, which places the page in the 10-30% revise band. Every checkable factual claim about the address's on-chain history -- its EOA status, zero balance, the two zero-value transfers with exact block numbers, absence of an ENS name, and no further activity -- was independently confirmed via Blockscout and Ethplorer and still held true on a live recheck ten weeks after the page's stated investigation date (claim_findings[0], [4], [13]). The five unverifiable items driving the disputed_pct are not contradictions: two are the result of blocked or unrendered pages (ChainAbuse, Etherscan's comment section) that the reviewer could not load, not evidence the underlying claims are wrong (claim_findings[7], [9]), and two more are inherently unconfirmable negative or interpretive statements checked only by general web search (claim_findings[12], [16]). Given the absence of any actual dispute and reviewer confidence of 0.70, we apply a penalty toward the lower end of the band rather than the band's upper range. The reviewer's high-priority coverage gap -- that the page's trust score of 45 has no stated rubric connecting it to an otherwise near-blank evidentiary record (claim_findings[18], coverage_gaps[3]) -- reinforces staying in review_revise rather than approve, but is not grounds to escalate to the 30%+ band's under_investigation status, since the band table gates that status strictly to disputed_pct of 30% or more and this page sits at 23.8%; that gap is a question about the index's own scoring methodology, not a factual defect in the page, and no combination of score delta, banner, or status change in this schema can resolve it.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 443,525,516

   sig

   43Bor6fSW56N…ghsg8PH6copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   BRWkRMFJGF3b…LxyLN86Ccopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (2264 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:52:33.653Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"b49b74f3-c3d5-4876-8cfd-a60919377829","new_score":37,"page_slug":"0x62d5a59e0d67c0381aad53b201b4a1b8dcd2c833","prev_score":45,"reason":"The review's own summary block was miscomputed and is superseded here: of 21 checked claims, 0 were disputed, 15 confirmed, 1 partially supported, and 5 unverifiable, giving a disputed_pct of (0+5)/21 = 23.8% under the spec's formula, which places the page in the 10-30% revise band. Every checkable factual claim about the address's on-chain history -- its EOA status, zero balance, the two zero-value transfers with exact block numbers, absence of an ENS name, and no further activity -- was independently confirmed via Blockscout and Ethplorer and still held true on a live recheck ten weeks after the page's stated investigation date (claim_findings[0], [4], [13]). The five unverifiable items driving the disputed_pct are not contradictions: two are the result of blocked or unrendered pages (ChainAbuse, Etherscan's comment section) that the reviewer could not load, not evidence the underlying claims are wrong (claim_findings[7], [9]), and two more are inherently unconfirmable negative or interpretive statements checked only by general web search (claim_findings[12], [16]). Given the absence of any actual dispute and reviewer confidence of 0.70, we apply a penalty toward the lower end of the band rather than the band's upper range. The reviewer's high-priority coverage gap -- that the page's trust score of 45 has no stated rubric connecting it to an otherwise near-blank evidentiary record (claim_findings[18], coverage_gaps[3]) -- reinforces staying in review_revise rather than approve, but is not grounds to escalate to the 30%+ band's under_investigation status, since the band table gates that status strictly to disputed_pct of 30% or more and this page sits at 23.8%; that gap is a question about the index's own scoring methodology, not a factual defect in the page, and no combination of score delta, banner, or status change in this schema can resolve it.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision e82d5417-7c0f-4b02-b247-9fd775e75a00copy