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 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443506412
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-10T13:43:42.315Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- H4Skz7owgcbJm2T92FicBZZ4KJ2D6pi3ucpN3URHbtBG
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1575 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-10T13:43:41.970Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"66c63ff3-4d66-4fac-81e6-e753ddf53383","new_score":0,"page_slug":"91m-bitcoin-social-engineering-theft-hardware-wallet-impersonation-august-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's central claims — the $91M August 2025 theft, ZachXBT's disclosure, the $243M Genesis creditor precedent and its prosecutions, the $282M January 2026 escalation, and the Coldcard firmware exploit — were independently confirmed by multiple credible sources with no dead links found. The one disputed item is a background statistic in the Coldcard section: the page's timeline reports Wave 1 losses as 1,083 BTC over 41 minutes from 'over 500' addresses, but its own cited source (TRM Labs) reports 594 BTC over 25 minutes, while the address count instead matches a different, higher figure (1,196) from another outlet — an internally inconsistent composite that should be corrected to a single sourced figure. A secondary claim attributing a 'largest ever' superlative specifically to CoinDesk could not be verified in that outlet's article, though the framing is widely repeated elsewhere. Neither issue touches the page's core allegations about the $91M theft itself, and the reviewer flagged no stale citations or link rot, but the reconciliation gap was marked high priority and warrants a correction before the page is considered fully settled.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}