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
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443514524
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T13:33:09.047Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CTuMSoYuNeUrzXrTAExXcJUUvMgM1Rini7KqJZCwYZ6D
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2044 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:33:08.463Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"23a61c72-de8d-43be-b9fc-8b59115ae7bf","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fbi-fake-token-tron-impersonation-wallet-freeze-extortion-scam-march-2026","prev_score":2,"reason":"The reviewer's math (2 disputed + 3 unverifiable of 33 claims = 15.2%) places the page in the minor-issues band, and the page passes the test that matters most on a scam-impersonation page: it never states or implies the real FBI actually froze anyone's wallet, consistently labeling the freeze claim as the scammers' fabrication (claim_findings[1], [4], [13]). That said, two problems merit a revision rather than a clean pass. First, the page falsely claims 'no available public source' discloses the phishing domain, when a Yahoo Tech article names it as fbiamlform.org (claim_findings[21]) — declining to republish a phishing domain is sound editorial caution, but asserting the domain was never publicly reported is a separate, incorrect claim about the state of the record and should be reworded rather than left as-is. Second, the page attributes an 'explicit' enumerated statement to the FBI ('does not distribute tokens, send blockchain messages, or request AML verification of any kind') that is not found verbatim in the FBI's actual post or any secondary quote (claim_findings[2], [6]); this recurs in three places on the page and, combined with two other misattributed quotes (claim_findings[18], [19]), reflects a pattern of overstating direct sourcing for quoted language that the raw disputed-claim percentage undercounts because these were scored partially_supported rather than disputed. A tangential mischaracterization of the FBI's 2024 NexFundAI sting outcome ($14,500 vs. the actual $25M/18-defendant result, claim_findings[23]) further needs correcting but sits in background context, not the core narrative.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}