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
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443519732
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T09:04:16.333Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9dLZe2ERPZZQGgBK5V391dbUVyY9scy5NHGzNBJumUnW
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1230 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T09:04:16.141Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"74c733a8-1c2a-4192-a238-a140c772db61","new_score":0,"page_slug":"coldcard-fake-hardware-audit-phishing-campaign","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a Proofpoint-documented phishing campaign impersonating Coinkite/Coldcard via a cloned site, a GitHub-hosted batch file, ScreenConnect, and a live human chat operator, riding on genuine RNG-vulnerability panic — is well corroborated by multiple independent outlets including a higher-tier source (BleepingComputer) not cited by the page. Coinkite and Coldcard are consistently and accurately framed as impersonated victims throughout, and the separately sourced email-retention criticism is kept distinct from the phishing perpetration; reader-facing safety guidance is internally consistent with no contradictions found. The most significant finding is that the page's own claim that no phishing domains or IOCs were published is contradicted by contemporaneous reporting that did publish specific, actionable indicators.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}