Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Sequence
#3
Score
40 (-12)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443520810
Off-chain at
2026-08-26T11:56:16.804Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
6fR3X3ZZgmVRwNhzBQewZZygh89HMdckhepWfFgyPbxj
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2136 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:56:16.453Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"212b8d43-7b4c-4693-9487-68bac07c6100","new_score":0,"page_slug":"gurhan-kiziloz-blockdag-co-founder","prev_score":4,"reason":"Of 48 fact-checked claims, 30 are confirmed, 11 are partially supported, 3 are disputed, and 4 are unverifiable, putting disputed_pct at 14.58% (3+4 divided by 48) -- inside the 10-30% band that calls for revision rather than approval or denial. The three disputed findings are citation and attribution defects rather than reversals of substance: two timeline entries cite the wrong source document (an ASA-ruling entry links to an article about the FCA warning instead, one not even in the page's own source list, and the April 2025 winding-up order links to coverage of an earlier, dismissed 2024 petition), and one timeline entry reverses who made an allegation, crediting BlockDAG with a claim ZachXBT actually made against it (claim_findings[45], [46], [47]). The underlying facts behind all three are independently confirmed elsewhere on the page. Separately, several partially-supported findings raise real editorial concerns for a page naming a private individual: the slug's flat 'co-founder' label goes beyond what the strongest sourcing (DL News, and the subject's own AMA) supports, even though the page body already hedges this correctly (claim_findings[0]); a 2021 UK regulatory approval is described more broadly than the limited agent status it actually was (claim_findings[16]); a family-funding claim is framed as a contested 'critics' allegation' when it was effectively confirmed by the company's own PR team at the time (claim_findings[11]); and an adverse wedding-spending figure rests on a single anonymous advocacy site (claim_findings[30]). The review also flags, as a high-priority coverage gap, that every cited regulatory and legal action targets corporate entities (Lanistar Limited, DAG Systems Ltd.) rather than Kiziloz personally.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}