Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
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 · Rossen Iossifov / RG Coins
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#2
Score
2 → 2 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443514023
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T13:03:58.011Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
5ZyXinBZ4eT1WUk1SQdXGNr8rxcQ1rZcFCLmx7HUBDjg
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1150 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:03:57.750Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"2e978d52-3d52-4152-a2bf-2f70d1cd564c","new_score":2,"page_slug":"rossen-iossifov-rg-coins","prev_score":2,"reason":"The great majority of factual claims on this page — the 2021 conviction and sentencing details, restitution and profit figures, victim and loss totals, the Sixth Circuit affirmance, the sentence reduction, and the 2026 charges and their allegation status — are independently confirmed against DOJ press releases, the Sixth Circuit opinion, and multiple credible news outlets, and the page correctly distinguishes the 2026 allegations from the established 2020/2021 conviction and sentence. The main weakness found is a section that frames the allegedly stolen forfeited funds as having been 'earmarked for victim restitution,' which conflates criminal forfeiture (owed to the government) with the separate restitution order (owed to victims) and is not supported by the cited primary sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}