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 · Ruja Ignatova
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562666
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:44:27.475Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2CKWubfUucd4DvbBbHiRipCRB8LCQUPjxKpRfvZ6KrVB
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1426 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"c5c116376b1f329cf9c1a49000985f21","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:44:27.176Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1364,"investigation_id":"ab9b5153-f948-4988-ba29-b797a20f98bc","new_score":0,"page_slug":"ruja-ignatova","prev_score":2,"reason":"The review found the page's central narrative -- OneCoin's fraud mechanics, Ignatova's 2017 federal indictment, her fugitive status, and the criminal outcomes for her co-conspirators -- to be well supported by DOJ, FBI, and independent reporting, with a disputed rate of about 19%. However, it also surfaced a clear date error in the Mark Scott sentencing timeline entry (claim_findings[17]), a widely repeated but unconfirmed '3.5 million victims' figure that one cited source contradicts with a materially lower estimate (claim_findings[5]), a statement attributed to the FBI that does not appear in the source cited for it (claim_findings[14]), and a co-conspirator conviction claim about Gilbert Armenta with no traceable citation (claim_findings[19]). These are correctable accuracy and sourcing issues rather than evidence that the core allegations are false, so the page should be sent back for revision rather than approved outright or denied.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}