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 · Gurhan Kiziloz (BlockDAG Co-Founder)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 4 → 0 (-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}