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
- #7
- Score
- 7 → 7 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457956820
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-17T07:39:42.940Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-17T07:39:44.989Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HeYxVeoLgmqxBVym2nbxaHZQnoVPdDMn9R6kyKVU5b6S
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1833 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"c2b1758926a7707a35452049ba02979a","decided_at":"2026-10-17T07:39:42.783Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.0769,"findings_hash":"FSSJFxbSzH5ffDKj48Di7X4WKhhDf8AeVDqg7oQF43t","investigation_id":"20a9d063-66d7-435f-82d1-5b2ba1af2c14","mode":"findings_only","new_score":7,"page_content_hash":"823488f1c78709785bd4d1ca0de38588f4dae1fdfc3101e48c60a3f9959a1681","page_slug":"bitmex-class-action-2026","prev_score":7,"reason":"The page's central narrative — the BKX Services/Namdar class action, its specific allegations ('god access,' Dwyer's alleged desk, the 622.66 BTC figure), BitMEX's prior CFTC/DOJ enforcement history, the 2025 pardons, the dismissed 2020 Messieh suit, and the phased Sept 23, 2026 shutdown — is well sourced and holds up against independent reporting. The most significant defect is sections[3]'s claim that BitMEX itself 'cited' a market-share decline as its reason for closing: the company's own blog post cites a 'strategic review,' and the decline figures ($400K/day, <0.01% share) come from secondary press analysis, not BitMEX's own statement — a misattribution that should be corrected. A second, smaller defect bundles Gregory Dwyer into the CFTC's 'unregistered derivatives platform' charge in the timeline when he was only indicted on the separate DOJ Bank Secrecy Act count. The single accepted community submission is broadly accurate but repeats an inflated '$200M in fines' figure not borne out by the record. The largest gap is the page's total silence on the concurrent, far larger Celsius estate lawsuit against BitMEX filed in the same month, which materially understates BitMEX's current litigation exposure.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":7,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}