Skip to main content
Sign in
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Crypto.com
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
28 → 28 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
426271607
Off-chain at
2026-06-13T20:29:36.886Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
3jibW3KTyVPBzcxzCVXSCadtScWuQNeCTL5HNwM12GVm
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1135 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-13T20:29:36.824Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"4353b260-3c61-49c0-b2b6-baf8e07bd172","new_score":28,"page_slug":"cryptocom","prev_score":28,"reason":"The page's summary and timeline contain broadly accurate information about Crypto.com's founding, the 2022 hack, the MCO-CRO swap controversy, and the 2025 CRO reissuance, all of which are well-documented. However, several claims are imprecise or overstated: the OFAC Tornado Cash sanctions claim is disputed because the official Treasury announcement does not cite the Crypto.com hack; the governance vote percentage (77.97% against) reflects early voting rather than the final official result; the Mazars PoR characterization is inaccurate as to the reason Mazars withdrew; and one cited source (sunsethq.com) is link-rotted. The most significant structural problem is that all eight page sections are empty, leaving the investigation as an unaugmented timeline with no thematic analysis.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}