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_approve · HTX (Huobi) Exchange
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 8 → 8 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426259573
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T19:10:01.413Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- C1kAYem7oMewiDa4nEVTNosfQHJzmWMUnoXC2Aampk9t
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1318 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T19:10:01.206Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"849c6623-be9b-4a8a-a85c-418a2d270d97","new_score":8,"page_slug":"htx-huobi-exchange","prev_score":8,"reason":"The reviewer assessed 34 claims and confirmed 27 outright, with a disputed_pct of 8.8% — below the 10% threshold for any revision action. The single disputed claim (claim_findings[23], the '2.9 billion WLFI tokens' figure) is a peripheral detail in the Justin Sun biography section and does not affect the page's core factual narrative around the UK FCDO designation, TRM Labs on-chain flow figures, or FCA civil proceedings, all of which were confirmed by Tier 1 sources. The four partially-supported findings involve minor editorial characterizations (a dropped 'suspected of' qualifier in claim_findings[5], and a 'primary hub' overstatement in claim_findings[12]) rather than substantive factual errors. Coverage gaps at high priority — notably the absence of post-May 2026 operational status and current FCA court docket information — suggest the page warrants expansion in a future investigation cycle but do not constitute grounds for revision or denial.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}