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_revise · Aurum Foundation
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-13)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443517436
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T22:19:56.201Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8Lk2z4V2iQR6Jfh2Gh3SKWGMkiSJFeP327qFk8EcZbdi
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2032 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:19:55.948Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"18c63c26-94e9-4cc8-9f89-9ed7c1901d0d","new_score":0,"page_slug":"aurum-foundation","prev_score":2,"reason":"The page's central allegations hold up well: the Ponzi structure, on-chain fund redistribution, exit-scam collapse timeline, and the string of regulatory warnings are all confirmed by independent and regulator-tier sources (31 of 39 claims confirmed, only 1 disputed). But the raw disputed rate understates two real problems the review surfaced. First, the page's claim that Shane Morand left Organo Gold around 2018 after trying to pitch crypto schemes to its distributor network is directly contradicted by the page's own cited source, which instead describes a 2020/2023 departure for unrelated reasons and never mentions a crypto pitch (claim_findings[12]) -- a specific, checkable claim about a named individual that needs to be corrected or removed, not just hedged. Second, several 'partially supported' findings cluster around a pattern of overstatement and sourcing carelessness in the regulatory section: the summary's 'at least ten jurisdictions' outruns the nine the page's own body documents (claim_findings[2]), a timeline entry double-counts an already-listed 2025 Bank of Russia warning as a fresh 2026 action (claim_findings[37]), two of the page's own Hong Kong SFC citations disagree on the alert date by a day (claim_findings[28]), and accurate traffic figures are attributed to articles not actually in that section's source list (claim_findings[30]). None of this undermines the page's core fraud characterization, but the concentration of these issues -- especially the contradicted named-individual claim -- is enough that the page should not clear review on the strength of a 2.6% disputed rate alone; it needs a correction pass before standing as-is.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}