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_approve · Vcex.io (As Sure Technology Co., Ltd.)
- Sequence
- #9
- Score
- 57 → 57 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464991172
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T17:58:28.781Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T17:58:41.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T17:58:41.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8HDpEhtBRKnSvbhYST9z7wBwxZc3D5QeyDNuRPi8cXnH
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1382 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d20edb4213219918216e6e83c7708a29","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T17:58:28.455Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"d574c4ec-8ee6-4460-9e68-332ed6bef2a9","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":57,"page_slug":"vcex-io-as-sure-technology-co-ltd","prev_score":57,"reason":"Of four claims checked, none were disputed. Two were confirmed and one (claim_findings[0]) was partially supported, because the summary says the SEC 'arranged' the block when sources show it requested one from the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. The statute citations (claim_findings[3]) could not be checked because the source refused the reviewer, so that finding is excluded from the dispute rate, which is 0% on the remaining three. That is a quarter of the findings and limits how much was verified, not a defect of the page. No omissions or contradicting status (shutdown, exploit, sanction) were found, and the page properly frames the claims as untested allegations.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":3,"sequence_num":9,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}