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 · MiCA Transitional Period Expiry — Unlicensed EU Crypto Platforms
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 27 → 9 (-18)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464443680
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T09:23:23.547Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T09:23:55.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T09:23:55.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6P2hkwCNsTtkxQqfqTAxKuAWUUgQG9cTqDeUymWJovFD
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2145 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"e1657028d151478c955c4ed503cca0ef","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T09:23:23.338Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1667,"investigation_id":"f7b59df3-f122-43f3-923d-b37414889049","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":9,"page_slug":"mica-transitional-period-expiry-unlicensed-eu-crypto-platforms","prev_score":27,"reason":"The page's core facts hold up: the July 1, 2026 end date and the June 16 Reuters report on Binance are accurately described (claim_findings[2]). However, the page is out of date. It does not say that Binance withdrew its Greek MiCA application on June 24, 2026 (claim_findings[0] and [1], omission_findings[0]), and it still reads as though the July 1 deadline is ahead, with nothing on what followed (claim_findings[4], omission_findings[1]). Two further points weigh smaller: 'expire uniformly' overstates the national transitional periods (claim_findings[3]), and the register counts could not be checked against the ESMA register (claim_findings[6]). The ESMA April statement could not be read because the source blocked access, so it is a coverage limit and not counted against the page.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-18,"score_limit":{"applied":-18,"limited":true,"proposed":-20,"rule":"second_opinion_agreed","second":-18},"scored_claims":6,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The percentage alone (1 unverifiable of 6 scored claims, about 17%) implies the minor band. The review reports two material omissions and a subject status that contradicts the page: Binance withdrew its Greek application on June 24, 2026, and the page is still written as if the July 1, 2026 deadline had not passed. Together these leave the page's main case study and its framing out of date, so the significant band applies."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}