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 · Huobi
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 53 → 53 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457817844
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T23:18:40.365Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T23:18:52.099Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EQbX4oEFcvno2Qb2AnCqT6F27UVDRrqzyKmvpSG6S5ZZ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2181 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"e24c04ecbbf1e94f7ec89249fd9f4be3","decided_at":"2026-10-16T23:18:39.797Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.3077,"findings_hash":"1SKYHww7XTRivs7XBYnb8ksnGmPF22bJBjPmbKL6YXE","investigation_id":"65e60ee1-c09f-49f5-8b47-53a556e664e3","mode":"findings_only","new_score":53,"page_content_hash":"5473344f0e32e4e3e0ce76cf52d85eb7d7dfd2ba34deb88de375b620adc091a9","page_slug":"huobi","prev_score":53,"reason":"The page's core narrative -- Sun's 2022 acquisition and effective control, the September and November 2023 security incidents, the SEC's 2023 fraud charges and 2026 dismissal, the Hong Kong/Thailand/Malaysia/Philippines/Seychelles regulatory actions, and the Protos reserve-manipulation reporting -- is well supported by credible, independently verifiable sources and is mostly stated with appropriate hedging ('alleged', 'suggests'). The most material defect is an internal miscount: the page claims 'three' security incidents in the summary, the Security Incidents heading, and the Risk Assessment section, but its own narrative and independent sources describe only two distinct incidents (the September hot-wallet drain and a single combined November HECO-bridge/hot-wallet attack), with the Risk Assessment section specifically double-listing the November event. A second defect group misstates Huobi's January 2023 pre-layoff headcount (~1,600 vs. ~1,100-1,200 in contemporaneous reporting, including the page's own cited Protos source), which also throws off a derived employee count in the timeline. The Trustpilot rating is stale (page says 1.4/5; live page now shows 1.2/5), the Shoosmiths citation is dead (404, unarchivable), and one sentence in the Risk Assessment section ('The Trustpilot reviews alone constitute Tier 3 evidence...') reads as an instruction directed at the review process rather than a factual claim about HTX and should be removed. A minor, likely erroneous addition of 'Myanmar' to HTX's banned-jurisdictions list was not corroborated by any source checked.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}