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 · Bitget Exchange (Shawn Liu)
- Sequence
- #8
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462277246
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-28T00:41:39.582Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-28T00:41:53.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-28T00:41:53.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DP2CcRyMRJWKNYUFus5ccEPR8Cbk6QuhTPKXusU5stVr
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2200 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"41b29eb9d8194ed57251a649d888d08d","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-28T00:41:39.338Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"3d4730c1-4369-4e11-80d9-494b6fb43800","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"bitget-exchange-shawn-liu","prev_score":26,"reason":"The claims the reviewer checked held up: the $351.6 million hack figure and September 24, 2026 date (claim_findings[0]) and the AMF blacklist and removal dates (claim_findings[2]) were confirmed against Tier 1 sources. The User Protection Fund figure (claim_findings[1]) was only partly supported, because the cited CoinDesk article gives over $464 million and no BTC range. The page is marked down because it says Bitget suspended withdrawals but omits that phased resumption began on September 28, 2026 (omission_findings[0], subject_status), and this is flagged as a high-priority coverage gap. One finding (claim_findings[3], India onboarding pause) could not be scored because the source blocked the reviewer; that is a coverage limit, not a defect of the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":3,"sequence_num":8,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"minor","from_band":"approve","reason":"Claim findings alone give 0% disputed (3 scored claims after excluding 1 source_blocked finding; none disputed or unverifiable), which would be an approve. However, the review reports a material omission (omission_findings[0]) and subject_status.contradicts_page is true: Bitget began phased withdrawal resumption on Sept 28, 2026, and the page describes withdrawals as suspended without saying so. A high-priority coverage gap on post-hack developments reinforces this. Escalated only to the minor band because the exchange is operating, the omission is a missing update rather than a false statement, and the reviewer's confidence is 0.5 on a small sample."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}