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_approve · KuCoin Exchange Hack
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 32 → 32 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426274145
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T20:46:24.631Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6tpkmaGsSQ56J6VtAgFXHM8pd3y5jLDFxqJfbbfgQh6V
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1510 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T20:46:24.322Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"0720b751-fc8c-476c-a495-9e5bf9518394","new_score":32,"page_slug":"kucoin-hack","prev_score":32,"reason":"Of 25 checked claims, 17 are fully confirmed and 0 are disputed. The 4% disputed_pct falls within the approve band. Five claims are partially supported, but none reverse a core allegation: the BTC stolen figure conflict (claim_findings[1]) reflects a genuine discrepancy across sources rather than a page fabrication; the timeline conflation (claim_findings[22]) is a minor dating error on the Lazarus attribution publication, not a factual inversion; and the 'guilty plea settlement' framing (claim_findings[19], [24]) is accurate for the entity PEKEN but omits the material legal distinction that individual founders Chun Gan and Ke Tang entered two-year deferred prosecution agreements rather than guilty pleas — a fact flagged as a high-priority coverage gap. Link rot on two citations (CoinTelegraph 404, one DOJ/Chainalysis 403) is not disqualifying because the underlying claims are independently corroborated by Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. The page holds up on all major facts and no penalty to the trust score is warranted; however, the DPA omission for individual founders is a significant editorial gap that should be expanded in the next revision.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}