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 · Liquid Global
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 45 → 45 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 455928923
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-12T05:19:29.602Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-12T05:19:47.818Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BQMAMaLzwLTRw2zGVQNNRtG2J8h4hvvKMVWypDuNgA8F
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2284 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"ad36d2d1cf740bc8aba0da7118c073e3","decided_at":"2026-10-12T05:19:29.377Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.225,"findings_hash":"5UneCG4Z6vLzzTQF46vewbk84aBJ3bLrmeCcJWCoaBCx","investigation_id":"3665921e-7f5f-4514-bfe7-177a85b5ecc4","mode":"findings_only","new_score":45,"page_content_hash":"0065115597ba1548ca1d46caaba84cf10da63105357f8146970bf4c1bc212ddc","page_slug":"liquid-global","prev_score":45,"reason":"The page's core narrative — the 2014 founding, 2018 rebrand, the ~$97M August 2021 hack, Chainalysis's DPRK/Lazarus attribution, the FTX loan and subsequent acquisition, and the November 2022 withdrawal freeze following FTX's bankruptcy — is well supported by its cited sources and holds up under independent verification. Several specific figures and sub-claims, however, do not match the sources cited for them: the amount of ETH sent to Tornado Cash (stated as ~9,000 ETH, actually ~6,000 ETH per CipherTrace/Elliptic), the claim that stolen funds reached Bilaxy (unsupported; Bilaxy suffered a separate, unrelated hack days later), the address counts attributed to the tayvano GitHub repository (stated as 15 ETH/8 BTC addresses, actually 16 ETH/13 BTC addresses in that same document), the name of FTX's bankrupt parent entity ('FTX Trading International' instead of 'FTX Trading Ltd.'), the characterization of the ex-employee lawsuit (framed backwards — she alleges she was scapegoated, rather than 'disputing claims of scapegoating'), and the inference of 'insider knowledge of the wallet architecture,' which the cited TRM Labs source does not make. One cited source (Bitcompare, used for the Nov 2022 trading-halt date) no longer resolves to content about Liquid at all, and the date it was used to support (Nov 18) is also a few days off from the best independently-sourced estimate (~Nov 20). A separate Cointelegraph URL used for Kayamori's biography and the 2014 founding date is dead (404) but has a live replacement with the same content. The 800,000-customers/$1.1B-daily-volume statistic has no source in the page's own citations and only weak secondary corroboration.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}