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 · Fake Crypto AML Checker Infrastructure
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-13)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443510258
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T02:47:05.232Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6zHNS1fCJzmsQctuzJQ6DsM6nCdQnh4pn5xKmhYK6xi6
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1671 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T02:47:04.993Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f2b6b619-2486-4480-9378-adeb55fba706","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fake-crypto-aml-checker-infrastructure","prev_score":0,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed the page's core narrative — a coordinated, template-based fake crypto AML-checker campaign, primarily impersonating AMLBot, that drains wallets via connect-and-sign social engineering — against Malwarebytes, AMLBot, and two PCrisk primary sources (claim_findings[0-9, 11-20, 22-23, 25], 19 of 26 claims confirmed). Two disputed claims and one unverifiable claim (2.9/26 ≈ 11.5%) keep the page in the 'minor issues' band, but both disputed items are more than routine slip-ups. claim_findings[10] shows the page's 'Known Fake Domains' section falsely states Malwarebytes published no domain list, when Malwarebytes' report contains a five-domain IOC list the page omits — a completeness error in a section marked critical severity. claim_findings[21] attributes a 'parallel fake Coldcard hardware wallet site' to PCrisk, but the reviewer could not locate any such PCrisk guide and believes this conflates an unrelated, larger Coldcard firmware-exploit story — an apparent misattribution rather than a citation gap. Two high-priority coverage gaps (missing Malwarebytes IOCs; no campaign-specific loss/on-chain data) reinforce the need for revision even though the overall disputed share is low. Reviewer confidence (0.78) is solid, supporting a firm but moderate penalty.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}