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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443510256
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T02:47:05.117Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5xspGLCvnbJ4SjNHxQEmzw5CTcKbtJUMZKbWisVqoxqj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1292 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T02:47:04.993Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"f2b6b619-2486-4480-9378-adeb55fba706","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fake-crypto-aml-checker-infrastructure","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative — a coordinated, template-based campaign of fake crypto AML-checker sites primarily impersonating AMLBot, using fake progress indicators and fabricated 'clean' results to induce wallet-draining approvals — is well supported by the Malwarebytes report, AMLBot's official blog, and PCrisk's two removal guides, all of which were independently accessed and confirmed to say what the page claims. Two material inaccuracies were found: the page incorrectly asserts Malwarebytes published no domain list (it did, via an IOC section omitted from the page), and it attributes an unverified 'fake Coldcard hardware wallet site' finding to PCrisk that could not be located and appears to conflate an unrelated, much larger Coldcard firmware-exploit story. A secondary section attributing specific victim-demographic framing to Crypto Economy and Cryptopolitan overstates what those articles actually say.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}