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 · "Claude AI" Crypto Arbitrage Bot YouTube Tutorial Scam
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464352558
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T03:58:17.020Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T03:58:44.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T03:58:44.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 9k8h5vy68cZLViGBcsX3df2WH36ihJN1mUyRsap4TDQ9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1418 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d3d06729b770a50b2dbfa099182294cd","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T03:58:16.780Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3,"investigation_id":"dc3300f8-2b2d-4155-b379-79248c2538f8","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"claude-ai-crypto-arbitrage-bot-youtube-tutorial-scam","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 10 checked claims, 2 were disputed and 1 could not be verified, giving a disputed rate of 30%, the top of the minor band. The core allegations hold up: the 224 victims, 274.60 ETH, 234 contracts and the finding that Claude plays no role all match the TRM Labs report (claim_findings[5], [6]), and the SentinelOne details match as well (claim_findings[9]). The defects are a wrong TRM publication date (Sept 1 instead of Sept 14, claim_findings[0]), a 2025 SentinelOne balance presented as a TRM-date figure (claim_findings[1]), and a Polymarket claim no cited source supports (claim_findings[2]). The one omission is minor, and the subject status is consistent with the page, so the verdict stays in the minor band at its upper end.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}