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 · Celsius Network
- Sequence
- #1
- Score
- 4 → 4 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 419597232
- Off-chain at
- 2026-05-14T02:33:01.718Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BeCGfYcg7RgXqFU7J8dn6avKAMiSsNBXY2azZjdqUBFh
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1358 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-05-14T02:33:01.587Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"e34e9cc0-ac32-4000-a897-f68e4c999d22","new_score":4,"page_slug":"celsius-network","prev_score":4,"reason":"The Celsius Network investigation page is substantively accurate and well-sourced across its core claims, with no outright disputed findings. The principal areas of concern are: (1) the $50 million ICO figure is presented as fact when DOJ plea documents establish the true amount raised was ~$32 million and the $50 million was Mashinsky's false public claim; (2) the $20 billion AUM figure is attributed to 'as of early 2022' when the actual peak was August 2021 with assets declining materially by early 2022; and (3) there is an internal inconsistency between the summary and criminal charges section in how the two guilty plea counts are labeled — the summary is correct (commodities fraud and securities fraud) while the section mislabels the second count as 'a scheme to manipulate the CEL token price' rather than the formal charge of securities fraud. All major legal events, dates, dollar amounts for regulatory actions, bankruptcy proceedings, and sentencing details are confirmed by tier-1 sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}