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
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443523589
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T04:01:29.341Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HbRHfmVuhJvqXLpVi2QqC6rdDio4T8cWYor4gw1BTszJ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1904 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T04:01:29.233Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"bf4a4ec1-6ca2-4bcc-840e-298334b765f5","new_score":0,"page_slug":"cambodia-chatgpt-pig-butchering-crypto-scam-network-openai-shutdown-july-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core framing is substantively sound: OpenAI did disclose, on July 31, 2026, the ban of a ChatGPT account network it assessed as very likely linked to Poipet, Cambodia, used across investment, romance, gambling, and impersonation fraud, following a WhatsApp tip, and this is well corroborated by the primary OpenAI disclosure and numerous secondary outlets. However, the review found a recurring pattern of imprecise sourcing: a journalist's editorial characterization ('most aggressive enforcement action') is misattributed to OpenAI in one section while correctly attributed to the journalist in another; a widely-cited 84% Tether/pig-butchering statistic is attributed to Elliptic when the page's own source credits a different academic paper; a persuasion-rate statistic (46% vs 18%) is presented as evidence about this specific network despite deriving from an unrelated generic study; a Huione Group duration figure ('four-and-a-half years') could not be corroborated and conflicts with reporting suggesting a much longer accumulation window; and several large-scale enforcement statistics (FBI's $8B/2,000-rescued figures, a $10M State Department reward) that pertain to separate operations (Prince Group/Chen Zhi in Cambodia, a Burma-based compound) are placed adjacent to the Kok An/Poipet narrative in a way that risks conflating distinct cases. Several timeline dates also do not match primary-source dates, consistent with a known date-defaulting artifact in this corpus.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}