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
- #2
- Score
- 3 → 3 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443513532
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T10:19:10.860Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AfU7WwWXCnKcvtPCa6KRXdRwNAcCLLGbrkLpFkv6oQX8
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1061 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T10:19:10.351Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"491937e2-0e11-4c61-ac86-db98727d3bab","new_score":3,"page_slug":"crypto-com-phishing-campaign-email-domain-abuse-august-2026","prev_score":3,"reason":"The page correctly and consistently distinguishes Crypto.com as a victim of third-party infrastructure/brand abuse rather than a breached party, and its central technical claim (a real url1137.crypto.com SendGrid tracking subdomain) is independently corroborated by third-party domain/malware scanners. However, the entire incident narrative rests on a single anonymous blog amplified by one aggregator with no independent security-vendor or mainstream corroboration, one cited precedent (CoinTracking) is misdated by a full year against its own source, and one industry-statistic (600% payment growth) directly contradicts the page's own cited sources (actual: 253%).","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}