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 · Liquid Global
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 10 → 10 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443514486
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T13:32:11.638Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8DMbEiB9QXtDYu89FiYiH4XErbPgPyNjGgPnTg6mqf5o
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1295 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:32:11.117Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"3665921e-7f5f-4514-bfe7-177a85b5ecc4","new_score":10,"page_slug":"liquid-global","prev_score":10,"reason":"The page's core narrative — the August 2021 hack, its DPRK/Lazarus attribution, the FTX emergency loan and subsequent acquisition, and the November 2022 FTX bankruptcy triggering Liquid's withdrawal freeze — is well-sourced and independently verifiable at the primary research-firm and tier-1 news level, and the three events are kept appropriately distinct without conduct being transferred between Liquid and FTX. The most significant issues found are: an unsupported claim that stolen funds reached the exchange Bilaxy (likely conflating a separate, contemporaneous Bilaxy hack), a Bitcoin-address count from the cited GitHub research repository that does not match what the repository actually lists, and a substantial gap in coverage of the entity's post-2023 status (the 2024 bitFlyer/FTX Japan acquisition and 2025 creditor distributions are omitted, leaving the reader with a stale impression that Liquid's fate remains an open question).","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}