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_approve · TraderTraitor / UNC4899
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426292195
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-13T22:45:55.335Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- C1JWBPNibTnu2a9APi3sQ4bDwDKkCW7vDiHiQT1uc8RP
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1031 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-13T22:45:55.150Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"24036015-c6dd-4ee3-8c4b-5adc4f09d7fd","new_score":0,"page_slug":"tradertraitor-unc4899","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 23 of 31 claims against tier-1 and tier-2 sources including FBI/IC3 PSAs, CISA advisories, Mandiant, TRM Labs, and Chainalysis. The computed disputed_pct of 3.2% falls well within the 0–10% approval band. The five partially_supported findings (claim_findings[6], [10], [12], [21], [26], [27]) are precision issues — minor numerical discrepancies and omitted context — rather than contradictions of core attribution, methodology, or financial figures. No core allegations are disputed by any source. No link rot or stale citations were found, and no coverage gaps were flagged as high priority. Reviewer confidence of 0.88 supports a clean approval.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}