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 · Fun Coffee (GCM Project)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516100
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:00:24.963Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5vc3UJQ1qRSk6CuEjCztU3ef2mdXhnGehMxNSHT67U5S
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1180 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:00:24.779Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"b2b72b73-0877-46ee-a67d-82c1f20a2ebe","new_score":2,"page_slug":"fun-coffee-gcm-project","prev_score":2,"reason":"The page's core factual architecture — SFC listing date, collapse timeline, arrest counts and roles, and the critical distinction between HK$104 million in police-confirmed losses versus HK$1 billion in unconfirmed investor chat-group allegations — is well supported by primary and credible secondary sources, and notably avoids the loss-figure conflation seen on a companion AVOID page about a related scheme. A handful of granular details (specific recruitment-payment figures, two individual victim anecdotes, one claim about authorities contacting multiple entertainers) could not be independently verified or showed minor inconsistency with the page's own cited reporting, and two source URLs could not be directly fetched despite retries, requiring corroboration via mirrored/syndicated versions of the same reporting.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}