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 · Malone Lam Crypto Syndicate
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-14)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443514483
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T13:31:13.180Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EtjYsx4fWZiWtCUZEiQGtwT6E6kCUAH5DoT3zsDpJyve
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2086 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:31:12.418Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"77f1bc76-abe9-4d92-8447-2baa6f8c9f17","new_score":0,"page_slug":"malone-lam-crypto-syndicate","prev_score":0,"reason":"The literal disputed rate is 9.4% (4 disputed + 1 unverifiable of 53 claims), just inside the approve band, and the page's core narrative -- the RICO prosecution, the $230 million Genesis-creditor theft mechanics, ZachXBT's identification work, and the two confirmed sentences -- holds up well. But the disputed claims are not evenly weighted: claim_findings[6] and [36] together mean the page presents a uniform 70-78 month sentence for all nine guilty-pleading co-defendants when only two sentences are confirmed and one defendant (Chetal) reportedly faces 235-293 months, both inventing and understating real people's criminal exposure. claim_findings[42] inverts a statute, describing RICO's 20-year per-count maximum as a 'minimum' for a named defendant's actual jeopardy. claim_findings[32] and [49] duplicate the same error across two sections: three named individuals (Dellecave, Ibrahim, Zulfiqar) are placed under charges roughly seven months before those charges existed. A related stale finding (claim_findings[33]) asserts two people are still at large when they have since been arrested -- a live inaccuracy about named people's custody status that the disputed_pct formula does not capture. These errors cluster around three of the review's high-priority coverage gaps (indictment chronology, RICO sentencing exposure, Chetal's status), which per policy should push a page toward revision even when the raw disputed percentage is low. Given reviewer confidence of 0.72 and a solid factual spine elsewhere, revision rather than denial is warranted, with a penalty toward the upper end of the minor-issues band to reflect that the errors concern real people's legal jeopardy rather than incidental details.","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}