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 · Luiz Carlos Capuci Jr.
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-7)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516749
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:34:47.051Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FpVEs2W2zxd8oSdJ5CS1A3YS1c1iZH9SDQZSrNVHyhhe
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1798 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:34:46.837Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"01a64e3e-f95d-45c8-bbbf-9b972e9f0196","new_score":0,"page_slug":"luiz-carlos-capuci-jr","prev_score":2,"reason":"This page's core factual architecture holds up: the SEC civil case, the DOJ indictment, the August 2025 $46 million default judgment, and the Brazil enforcement action are all confirmed against primary sources, and the page is unusually careful about labeling allegations as pending versus resolved (claim_findings[6], [12], [14]). The computed disputed rate is only 6.7%, which would normally clear for approval. However, claim_findings[10] identifies a specific, checkable overstatement: the page states as flat fact that 'Capuci and Pires were arrested' during Operation Yang, while the page's own cited source explicitly says it could not confirm Capuci's arrest, only Pires's. A named individual's arrest and custody status is a serious, actionable fact, and asserting it without qualification when the source itself withholds confirmation is a real problem, not a stylistic one. This is flagged as a high-priority coverage gap, which under review policy warrants revision even though the aggregate disputed percentage is low. A secondary, lower-severity issue (claim_findings[3]) is that the page's '$11 million diverted to personal wallets' figure appears to be the page's own sum of two separately-sourced SEC figures, presented as if independently documented. A third item, the mismatched Engadget archive snapshot, is correctly treated as a platform archiving defect rather than a page-authorship problem and carries no penalty.","score_delta":-7,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}