Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
#3
Score
00 (-6)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443518099
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T22:49:25.348Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
C3BpoMWM7WQ4RpsYkUgiXcVtVfKGJhWNA7u83UfqcJsH
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2188 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:49:25.087Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"a531e342-f813-4cf2-ad17-392497d9e60f","new_score":0,"page_slug":"mica-post-deadline-impersonation-scam-cluster-esma-amf-warning-august-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 23 of 26 claims outright, with zero disputed or unverifiable claims and no link rot on any citation; the page's core narrative — the MiCA transitional-period expiry, ESMA's and AMF's confirmed impersonation cases, and Belgium's FSMA blacklist of six named unauthorized entities — is well corroborated by primary regulatory sources. However, the disputed-claim count does not capture two accuracy problems worth correcting. First, claim_findings[9] shows the page's top-level summary states that ESMA, France's AMF, the Dutch AFM, and Belgium's FSMA jointly 'documented a significant surge in impersonation scams,' when only ESMA and AMF are actually documented as having been impersonated; AFM issued a general caution and FSMA's action targeted unauthorized providers, not impersonation of FSMA itself. Notably, the page's own Attribution section already draws this distinction correctly — only the summary overstates it. Second, claim_findings[10] found no source naming Coinbase, Kraken, or OKX as impersonation targets; the underlying reporting names them only as examples of licensed, MiCA-authorized exchanges. Stating specific real companies were targeted, without a source, is a sourcing lapse on a platform whose core value proposition is sourced evidence, even though the framing itself does not accuse them of wrongdoing. A third partially-supported item (claim_findings[17], an unverified 2020 loss-figure comparison) is minor and does not affect the page's core claims. None of this rises to a disputed core allegation, and reviewer confidence was reasonably high (0.82) with no critical citation showing link rot or staleness, so the issues call for a correction pass rather than a significant-issues label or investigation status change.","score_delta":-6,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}