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
- #2
- Score
- 18 → 18 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443514761
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T13:49:04.358Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- pH9R6cVRYQMWJQyHDnbUipCTH3cVmZ8euGTNLYEBjrU
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1356 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:49:03.694Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"6b222456-458b-430a-996f-e0fa17e088fd","new_score":18,"page_slug":"htx-fca-uk-enforcement-illegal-crypto-promotions-2026","prev_score":18,"reason":"The page's core factual architecture is very well supported: the primary FCA Particulars of Claim was fetched and read in full, and it corroborates — often verbatim — the great majority of specific factual claims, including the five-defendant 'persons unknown' structure, procedural order dates, the test-purchase evidence, the 1,200 USDT promotion, and the UK visit statistics. Crucially, the page correctly and consistently distinguishes the FCA's civil High Court declaration/injunction claim from a final notice, penalty, or criminal prosecution, which was the central risk flagged for this review. The most significant issue found is a quantitative conflation in the Russia-sanctions section, where a 'roughly half of Russia's annual military expenditure' statistic that applies to the ~$90 billion A7 network total is instead attached to the much smaller $1.5 billion figure specifically attributed to HTX, inflating the apparent scale of HTX's individual role.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}