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
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426295705
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T23:09:06.776Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BjtnHu6M11k4v86BZMnzMZ3zhpv1Btd4ymTaawHnmqRd
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1332 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T23:09:06.592Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"50a981f6-6057-4c68-b32b-150fd3b86197","new_score":0,"page_slug":"morocoin-berge-blockchain-cirkor-ai-wealth-investment-club-network","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer examined 26 discrete claims and found 21 confirmed, 3 partially supported, and 2 unverifiable — with zero disputed. The disputed_pct of 7.7% falls within the 0–10% approval band. The three partially supported findings (claim_findings[5], claim_findings[16], claim_findings[25]) involve a minor quote truncation, geographic framing ambiguity for Myanmar, and an unconfirmable 'first CETU action' characterization — none undermine the core fraud allegations. The two unverifiable findings (claim_findings[15], claim_findings[19]) arise solely from the inaccessibility of the SEC complaint PDF, not from contradicting evidence, and both are corroborated at least partially by credible secondary sources. No link rot or stale citations were identified. One high-priority coverage gap exists (PACER docket status for Case No. 1:25-cv-04102), which is appropriate for page expansion but does not warrant a revision hold.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}