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 · Zyaire Wilkins (Steam Malware Crypto Theft Ring)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443522596
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T00:06:54.632Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3rZfwLfpQfYJt7yWHsid15vtsNan4y1Nu1mDnJMSgpqK
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2136 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T00:06:54.395Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"ab67741e-aa53-4dae-a2e9-1552ff42dbba","new_score":0,"page_slug":"zyaire-wilkins-steam-malware-crypto-theft-ring","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core facts — Wilkins' identity, the July 14 arrest, the charge, the $220,000/8,000-computer/80-wallet figures, and the digital-forensics trail — are well corroborated across six independent outlets and were confirmed by the reviewer (claim_findings[0], [1], [9], [10], [22]-[26]). However, the review found a specific date error (the page's July 16 initial-appearance date is contradicted by contemporaneous reporting placing it on July 15, claim_findings[4]), an internal contradiction over how many game titles were publicly named (claim_findings[11] vs. [12]), pre-arrest security research presented as if it came from the criminal complaint (claim_findings[16]), a game removal misattributed to 'user reports' rather than a named researcher's analysis (claim_findings[31]), and, most seriously, a claim that 'a second unnamed individual is alleged to have assisted' that no source consulted supports — every account describes only Wilkins and one unnamed developer (claim_findings[28]). The page's title framing of a 'ring' is also not supported by any source, which describes at most a two-person conspiracy (claim_findings[33]). Using the reviewer's own per-claim array (34 findings, disputed_pct ≈ 14.7%) rather than its summary tally (38 claims, ≈15.8-16%), both land in the same 10-30% band, so this does not change the outcome. Given the accumulation of an apparently invented allegation, a title/entity overstatement, a factual date error, and misattributed sourcing — on a page about a person arrested six weeks ago who has not been indicted, tried, or convicted, and which has neither a presumption-of-innocence disclaimer nor any citation to the underlying complaint or docket — the page needs correction rather than removal.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}