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 · Multichain
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 32 → 32 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 465090115
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T23:51:43.456Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T23:52:03.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T23:52:03.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- F1uL48htECKGdRksiSYYskiY7gSEQ3YNzBwec2VqmT9X
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2078 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"38a4484fb743985686c07704320ef6de","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T23:51:43.193Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1667,"investigation_id":"a7494e2f-bbed-4892-a2cc-55eee9a00bae","judge_def_hash":"750934ecb48272224909b7430fab271676d391380fbc821acbe7ee7e4cac2fa3","new_score":32,"page_slug":"multichain","prev_score":32,"reason":"Of six claims checked, one (claim_findings[1], the $265 million total) could not be found in its cited Chainalysis source and contradicts the page's own $126-127 million headline, which puts the percentage in the minor band at about 17%. Two further findings (claim_findings[0] and [5]) show a Singapore court 'finding' on CEO control that appears to be only the claimant's position in a default judgment. The page also misses the May 2025 winding-up order against Multichain Foundation (omission_findings[0], material), so it presents as speculation something that has already happened. Because of the material omission and the overstated court finding, the page is judged in the significant band; the reviewer's confidence is modest (0.55) and the sample was small, so the penalty sits at the lower end of that band.","reviewer_def_hash":"3839668b232611e5b26db72079d64745f8e57e919b8a379e79b44ba4a52c845b","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"minor","reason":"The percentage alone (1 of 6 findings unverifiable, about 17%) gives the minor band. The review reports a material omission: on 9 May 2025 the Singapore High Court ordered Multichain Foundation wound up and appointed KPMG as liquidators, while the page only speculates that the judgment 'could enable' a liquidator. In addition, the court-finding claim in sections[1] and timeline[12] attributes to the court what appears to be the claimant's position in a default judgment, which bears on a core allegation about CEO control."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}