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 · Coincheck
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 74 → 74 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464344679
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T03:30:16.285Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T03:30:33.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T03:30:33.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 32C8xAABn9ituSahW5YWGkLQje6aNhyN93WaC88b4Y5L
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2521 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"6a8895656edf2181da889f1931b394ba","band_override":{"actual_delta":-28,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0.6364,"expected_delta_range":[-50,-30],"expected_verdict":"review_deny","rationale":"Of 11 checked claims, 5 were disputed (claim_findings[0], [1], [3], [4], [5]) and 2 could not be verified (claim_findings[8], [9]), a 64% rate that would normally mean a failed factcheck. The disputed items are small factual slips (SPAC closing date Dec 10 not Dec 5, compensation start Mar 12 not Mar 9, FSA order date Mar 8 and four other exchanges not five), and three of the five come from one FSA error. The core narrative (the 2018 NEM hack, the FSA orders, the Monex acquisition, the 2019 license and the 2024 Nasdaq listing) was confirmed, and the reviewer's confidence is only moderate (0.55), so the verdict is revise rather than deny. The page was not delisted; the dates, counts, USD compensation figure (claim_findings[2]) and net-loss period label (claim_findings[6]) need correcting, and 2025-2026 developments are missing but only minor omissions."},"decided_at":"2026-11-02T03:30:16.015Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.6364,"investigation_id":"7e0ca938-db80-4669-85f3-f45a238c59f4","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":74,"page_slug":"coincheck","prev_score":74,"reason":"Of 11 checked claims, 5 were disputed (claim_findings[0], [1], [3], [4], [5]) and 2 could not be verified (claim_findings[8], [9]), a 64% rate that would normally mean a failed factcheck. The disputed items are small factual slips (SPAC closing date Dec 10 not Dec 5, compensation start Mar 12 not Mar 9, FSA order date Mar 8 and four other exchanges not five), and three of the five come from one FSA error. The core narrative (the 2018 NEM hack, the FSA orders, the Monex acquisition, the 2019 license and the 2024 Nasdaq listing) was confirmed, and the reviewer's confidence is only moderate (0.55), so the verdict is revise rather than deny. The page was not delisted; the dates, counts, USD compensation figure (claim_findings[2]) and net-loss period label (claim_findings[6]) need correcting, and 2025-2026 developments are missing but only minor omissions.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}