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
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443517769
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T22:29:22.954Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HVPRt8wCeGHssWg9AJAV7mFbr24j1w3RWsa9cA5DPbMW
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1712 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:29:22.782Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"7a46b309-a70d-44be-a0f7-6d3b9d0c2347","new_score":0,"page_slug":"mica-post-deadline-crypto-firm-impersonation-scam-cluster-august-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's factual backbone holds up: the MiCA deadline mechanics, authorization counts, and ESMA/AMF's own advisories confirming they were impersonated are independently corroborated (claim_findings[0,2,5,6,7,8,13,14,16,17,19]). But five of the 28 claims (claim_findings[1,3,4,15,27]) repeat the same overstatement across the summary, the overview section, the official-warnings section, and the timeline: the page describes a 'coordinated' four-regulator (ESMA, AMF, AFM, FSMA) confirmation of impersonation fraud, when the underlying reporting shows only ESMA and AMF specifically confirmed being impersonated, while AFM and FSMA issued narrower general-caution and unauthorized-business alerts. Two more findings (claim_findings[20,25]) show the page's cited source for its firm-authorization figures does not contain the number attributed to it, even though the number is independently correct elsewhere. Combined with a high-priority coverage gap noting that three sections carry a 'critical' severity rating despite no case-level victim, loss, or enforcement data specific to this cluster, the page needs its central regulatory-coordination claim and its severity labeling tightened, even though the raw disputed/unverifiable share (2 of 28 claims, about 7%) alone would sit in approve territory.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}