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 · Fun Coffee (GCM Project)
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 452529889
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-02T06:31:03.136Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-02T06:31:19.219Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DbFydVYqDWXN2ZrRGusa5qwQzpok5nm4TUFQKfkHfByp
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2005 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"fc541b788d5c8d05bf66965c29c2b53a","decided_at":"2026-10-02T06:31:02.998Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.125,"findings_hash":"HtDxDqmCFEoYtGeXLH4gr2iB78n5MycA3Lcvsrh9MTJK","investigation_id":"b2b72b73-0877-46ee-a67d-82c1f20a2ebe","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"cf4bc1e3d214b1399f165e73d51c5c94d9ea8ceefb49871483cda9b6568187f2","page_slug":"fun-coffee-gcm-project","prev_score":0,"reason":"The large majority of this page's claims hold up well against independent verification: the SFC alert listing, the investment-tier mechanics (confirmed down to the exact USDT figures via an independent on-chain forensics report), the Louis Yuen episode, the arrest details in Hong Kong/Macau/Singapore, the Vietnam MPS warning, and the self-reported vs. police-confirmed loss distinction are all accurately sourced and appropriately hedged. Two defects stand out: the joint Hong Kong-Macao police operation is described as running through August 5 when the cited and independently found sources place it at August 1-3 (the August 5 date belongs to a separate loss-figure update, not the operation itself), and the JPEX comparison mischaracterizes JPEX as a 'licensed-exchange scandal' when JPEX was in fact also unlicensed and was itself on the SFC's Alert List — inverting the actual point of the cited commentary, which is about marketing strategy rather than licensing status. The headline loss/complaint totals (HK$104m / 255 complaints) are also now stale relative to a confirmed August 20, 2026 police update (HK$118m / 286 complaints) that the page does not reflect. The most significant coverage gap is the complete absence of on-chain/USDT forensic evidence (a specialist tracing report exists and would materially strengthen the page), despite that being central to AVOID.NET's positioning.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}