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.
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 18 → 18 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457450609
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T01:16:02.669Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T01:16:08.475Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5yGY8GXs2WNerV2DbVAm2asgoPRKJxt5ghBpQ9g3Tpyr
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2412 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"b429722737bed12f5f305cdaf7c37012","decided_at":"2026-10-16T01:16:02.496Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2286,"findings_hash":"CALvfQESjkycG4HY5PBYSp7nPUYAoMjgi9FzMM8ggiqG","investigation_id":"a9cdc7b5-15a1-4e71-857b-15faed45731b","mode":"findings_only","new_score":18,"page_content_hash":"3469393fdd236d87aae6640fd01d4b10c277958605a22f47800e18b6a7ebb239","page_slug":"coldcard-coinkite-firmware-seed-entropy-exploit-multi-actor-august-2026","prev_score":18,"reason":"The page's technical and factual core holds up well under independent verification: the March 2021 libngu/Yasmarang build-integration defect, the #ifndef MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG mechanism, the 40-bit/72-bit entropy estimates, the affected firmware ranges, the multi-wave theft timeline, and the escalating loss figures attributed to specific named outlets (The Hacker News, Fox Business, TRM Labs, Fortune, The Block/Galaxy Research, TechCrunch) were all independently confirmed against primary Coinkite disclosures and the cited secondary reporting. Several named quotes (Lorenzo Valente/ARK Invest, Ledger's Charles Guillemet on the 2022 Trust Wallet/Donjon parallel, James O'Beirne's risk warning, Nick Neuman's dice-roll criticism, the Coinkite 'hardest in this company's history' line) were verified essentially verbatim. Weaknesses found: a precise '9:33 AM EDT' patch-release timestamp appears twice (same underlying defect) with no supporting source anywhere, including Coinkite's own firmware page; a quotation attributed to Guy Swann does not match the only sourced wording found and is marked disputed; a News.Bitcoin.com paraphrase overstates victims as 'planning' litigation when the article describes a single advisor 'studying' options; the specific attribution of coldcardwatch.com to BlockSec and Galaxy Research could not be confirmed since the site brands itself as anonymous independent research; the Legal Exposure section rests heavily on a Stoltmann Law Offices page that could not be independently fetched; and the summary's 'more than 7,700 addresses' figure exceeds the best-documented figure (~7,300) found in any source consulted. None of the core loss, timeline, or technical claims were contradicted by more credible reporting.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}