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 · Indodax
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 71 → 71 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464459646
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T10:20:25.874Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T10:20:53.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T10:20:53.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- AbWPtEoGDHYYgnbouakSzCgCjpovxCm115MHSTGRzUzu
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1776 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"7e8d14b052c2beb984ba16ffd28f6069","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T10:20:25.625Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"cc689b31-8f17-4c11-9d46-ba24666cce1c","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":71,"page_slug":"indodax","prev_score":71,"reason":"Of 7 claims checked, 2 could not be verified (claim_findings[1], the 5,000 ETH Tornado Cash figure, which the cited Merkle Science report does not contain; and claim_findings[4], the unsourced 2020 'first licensed' timeline entry), giving about 29% disputed. The core hack narrative, the Merkle Science loss breakdown and the May 2025 leadership change were confirmed. The page also omits the January 2026 member fund-loss allegations and OJK summons (omission_findings[0], material), which weighs more than the percentage alone suggests, so the penalty is raised to the significant band. Because reviewer confidence is moderate (0.55) and the exchange is confirmed operating, the penalty is kept at the low end of that band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The review reports a material omission: January 2026 member fund-loss allegations and an OJK summons are absent from the page, and the Regulatory Status section says no enforcement action has been identified. The claim percentage (about 29%) implies the minor band, so the page is judged by the significant band instead."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}