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 · Huione Group (Haowang Guarantee)
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 461970274
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T06:32:33.134Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T06:33:03.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T06:33:03.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EFsh1V6xiT26NbJMaWvK86Ca9KapMnHD3AS9jqztn7QN
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1665 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"bc2350c319df35bb40551674efffd717","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T06:32:32.858Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3333,"investigation_id":"a68a9e58-7e6b-44e2-9862-0c25c6a2cbeb","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"huione-group-haowang-guarantee","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 12 checked claims, 1 was disputed and 3 could not be found in the cited sources (none were blocked), giving 4 of 12, or 33%. The disputed claim is a date: the FinCEN final rule is dated October 14, 2025 by both primary releases, but the page says October 15 (claim_findings[2]). The Lazarus and ballistic-missile attributions to FinCEN and Treasury (claim_findings[4], [5]), the Karen National Army reference (claim_findings[6]) and the Huione Pay wind-down sequence (claim_findings[10]) were not located in the cited pages; the reviewer did not find them contradicted. The core narrative (DOJ seizure, FinCEN findings, $134B Elliptic figure, Prince Group sanctions) was confirmed by primary or tier-2 sources, and the one omission, the H-Pay comment-period extension, is minor. The penalty sits at the low end of the 30-60% band because the problems are mostly unsupported attributions rather than contradicted allegations, and the reviewer's confidence is moderate (0.6) with many sources unread.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}