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 · Bitrue
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 71 → 71 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462177986
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T18:49:05.090Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T18:49:19.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T18:49:19.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3zkdyoLrYzjiVmJLWx8ZV8SMfH31jkMcGZ74GGS5JCEF
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1489 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"7479c7e67e43a3ad5b9fc5d45d3c7e13","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T18:49:04.804Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.375,"investigation_id":"43cef8ae-9c17-4fa8-aedc-da32e514e543","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":71,"page_slug":"bitrue","prev_score":71,"reason":"Of 9 claim findings, 1 was excluded because its source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[5]), and 3 of the remaining 8 (37.5%) could not be verified because no source was found: the 'first formal regulatory credential' timeline claim (claim_findings[4]), the Lithuanian MiCA transition (claim_findings[6]) and the Singapore regulatory statement (claim_findings[7]). The central allegations, the April 2023 hack and the June 2025 laundering figures, were confirmed against cited sources (claim_findings[0], [1]), and nothing was found to contradict the page. Because the unverified items are unsourced rather than disputed, the penalty is set at the low end of the band. Smaller issues are a loosely attributed gain (claim_findings[2]) and an archive link that points to an unrelated article (claim_findings[8]).","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}