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.
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457546736
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T07:02:01.386Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T07:02:14.383Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HiXn1521svYzbbgwWGrhBGUaRhuwbbgezJ9ZBCncyK4h
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2185 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"35754abc7ec0cb9cbb754f7b3609e0e5","decided_at":"2026-10-16T07:02:00.995Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1111,"findings_hash":"Fx6QnKzJSmGNf4g1AH8ZtpYWgiH8u1qxE7ki7qAmZ7BV","investigation_id":"7a131dc6-a35d-48ca-abb2-45ff139dbcbf","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"7c4e35fda600464fe64eed4472afb3d8e5561d48f062df1f38e708d3e5a3da3c","page_slug":"novatech-ltd-cynthia-petion-650m-crypto-mlm-fraud","prev_score":0,"reason":"This is an unusually well-sourced page. Every major dollar figure, date, and quoted characterization that could be checked against a primary document — the SEC's complaint (fetched directly, including the normally hard-to-verify $18 million trading-loss figure and the $4.3M/$1.5M/$35.2M transfer figures, and the 'seven counts' claim), the Maryland Securities Commissioner's Final Order (fetched directly, including an exact verbatim quote), and the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal's merits and sanctions decisions (fetched directly, including the 'egregious'/'flagrantly ignored' quotes and exact penalty/disgorgement/costs figures) — matched the page's text precisely. The NY AG lawsuit figures and the SEC/NY AG $650M-vs-$1B/$18M-vs-$26M-loss discrepancies that the page itself flags as differing methodologies are consistent with the primary sources. The one substantive concern is a minor sourcing ambiguity in the NY AG Lawsuit section, where three named promoters (Corbett, Zizi, Ciceron) are presented as NovaTech promoters when the NY AG's own release associates them specifically with the AWS Mining side of the joint complaint. Two details (the +507 WhatsApp number and the January 2024 Ontario service-waiver motion) could not be independently verified due to source access limitations, not because they appear wrong. No accepted community submissions existed to review. Coverage gaps are mostly about forward-looking case status (restitution, on-chain tracing, other promoters' outcomes) rather than accuracy of what is currently stated.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}