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 · Gurhan Kiziloz (BlockDAG Co-Founder)
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 4 → 4 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443520808
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T11:56:16.634Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5HxeJkGpQuZX2WTcuwuCGT9Q9ov1wZWM3ja1jc3yoMhu
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1352 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:56:16.453Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"212b8d43-7b4c-4693-9487-68bac07c6100","new_score":4,"page_slug":"gurhan-kiziloz-blockdag-co-founder","prev_score":4,"reason":"Most factual claims on this page are well corroborated by primary or high-quality secondary sources, including a direct match against the FSA Seychelles regulator's own text, the DL News investigation, and The Gazette's winding-up record. The main defects found are: the slug's flat 'co-founder' framing is more definitive than the underlying sourcing (which supports 'founder who concealed his role behind a paid frontman,' later self-acknowledged, rather than a two-person co-founding); a family funding switch at Lanistar is downplayed as a 'critics' allegation' when it was effectively confirmed by Lanistar's own PR team; the nature of Lanistar's 2021 FCA 'approval' (limited EMD-agent status under another firm's licence) is not specified; a wedding-spending claim rests on a single anonymous advocacy site; and three timeline entries contain citation-date mismatches or a backwards attribution that should be corrected independent of the underlying facts, which mostly hold up.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}