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 · AscendEX (BitMax)
- Sequence
- #10
- Score
- 23 → 23 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462057509
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T11:42:00.181Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T11:42:18.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T11:42:18.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9GWYZnL6TSoDb42EAZ1w9aYTY4U2mjo4RkFBpJZNdVXo
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2463 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"00483b9d7a9a7c117f486ffce5205a55","band_override":{"actual_delta":-8,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0.0909,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"Of 12 claim findings, one was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[9]). Of the remaining 11, one is unverifiable (claim_findings[6], an editorial line) and none is outright disputed, so the formula gives about 9%, at the edge of the approve band. We moved up to a minor revision because the July 8 claim that ZachXBT reported 'verified user loss claims in the millions' appears in both the section text and the timeline (claim_findings[2] and [3]) and the cited source does not support it. Two archive links also point to unrelated articles (claim_findings[10]). The core narrative (June withdrawal freeze, the $240M outflow, the July 1 shutdown, the July 6 manual-review notice) is confirmed, the page already states the shutdown, and the omissions are minor, so the penalty is small."},"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T11:41:59.532Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0909,"investigation_id":"a2376978-bfce-4a51-9673-406ac00d7f5d","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":23,"page_slug":"ascendex-bitmax","prev_score":23,"reason":"Of 12 claim findings, one was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[9]). Of the remaining 11, one is unverifiable (claim_findings[6], an editorial line) and none is outright disputed, so the formula gives about 9%, at the edge of the approve band. We moved up to a minor revision because the July 8 claim that ZachXBT reported 'verified user loss claims in the millions' appears in both the section text and the timeline (claim_findings[2] and [3]) and the cited source does not support it. Two archive links also point to unrelated articles (claim_findings[10]). The core narrative (June withdrawal freeze, the $240M outflow, the July 1 shutdown, the July 6 manual-review notice) is confirmed, the page already states the shutdown, and the omissions are minor, so the penalty is small.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":11,"sequence_num":10,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}