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_revise · Trung Nguyen Van (Triangle pig-butchering scam)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 3 → 0 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462186206
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T19:17:53.288Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T19:18:25.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T19:18:25.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DCeW8WWUFFPDnGBtFXmfTWWBSGegEEhbg1sohzAyH8yc
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1521 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"6fb860320ae67ffa4e4878455ac631b3","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T19:17:52.999Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"432f3c97-2806-4aa2-8ad7-df2aadb05bfc","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"trung-nguyen-van-triangle-pig-butchering-scam","prev_score":3,"reason":"The core allegations hold up across multiple independent outlets: the defendant's identity, the two money laundering counts, the $16M victim loss and the $53.28M inflow and $53.19M outflow (claim_findings[0], [1], [4]). Of 8 countable claims (1 further claim excluded because its source was blocked), 2 were disputed or unverifiable (25%), which falls in the minor-issues band. The problems are sourcing rather than substance: the Aug 7 and Aug 9 timeline entries cite The Block, which does not contain those details (claim_findings[3]), the penalty sentence attributes figures to coverage that does not state them (claim_findings[5]), and the 'fake profit dashboards' sentence has no case-specific support (claim_findings[6]). The two omissions found are minor, and the page frames everything as allegations.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-8,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}