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 · Crypto.com
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 28 → 16 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426271610
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T20:29:36.971Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5G79ar91f8qSS4Yd9ey4hGRX7j7q94Sdz6y8mX8QAHqj
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1523 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T20:29:36.824Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"4353b260-3c61-49c0-b2b6-baf8e07bd172","new_score":16,"page_slug":"cryptocom","prev_score":28,"reason":"The review found 13.6% of claims disputed or unverifiable across 22 checked items, placing this page in the minor-issues band. The most significant factual error is claim_findings[8]: the page states that OFAC's August 2022 Tornado Cash sanctions specifically cited the Crypto.com hack, but both the official Treasury press release and the cited TechCrunch article name only the Lazarus Group, Harmony Bridge, and Nomad incidents — Crypto.com is not mentioned. Additionally, claim_findings[16] presents an early-voting snapshot (77.97% against) as the final governance result, which misrepresents the official tally (62.1% in favor after large validators voted). One cited source (sunsethq.com, claim_findings[9]) is link-rotted. Beyond disputed claims, three high-priority coverage gaps are identified: all eight thematic page sections are entirely empty, regulatory history outside the SEC investigation is absent, and no on-chain analysis of the CRO reissuance or 2022 hack proceeds is present. These gaps do not constitute disproof of existing claims but materially limit the page's investigative value and require expansion before the page can be considered complete.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}