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 · ZachXBT
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 82 → 82 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457629152
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T11:58:03.219Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T11:58:08.682Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 8sqnogAB2CCS8nDENpcThbT9n9yscDpXq3RwCKdnFnyH
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1646 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"5843299d275d516eabdd5690b4af55f1","decided_at":"2026-10-16T11:58:02.991Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.3,"findings_hash":"7NCRLpbe4UrmK2StTvwew2kDgSGhV1HCC2EKoipe5Wip","investigation_id":"eb4cdb20-d5b9-4a90-89bb-1bff054f4b96","mode":"findings_only","new_score":82,"page_content_hash":"26a7a1c20657395d12b455c8b4115769b176aa53cfe2a29e278b28bda86728da","page_slug":"zachxbt","prev_score":82,"reason":"The page's core narrative -- ZachXBT's background, the Huang v. Wolk defamation suit and its $1.1 million legal defense fund, the Genesis creditor theft and Bybit/Lazarus attribution, the Paradigm hire, and the 2026 USMS/Daghita case -- is well supported by CoinDesk, Decrypt, Blockworks, TRM Labs, and Wikipedia reporting, and most dollar figures and named individuals check out against primary and secondary sources. The clearest defects are an overstated claim that the BAYC phishing ring was 'convicted' when only charges and pre-trial detention are documented, a dead Cointelegraph citation for the impersonator-scam claim, and two date errors (the IC3 PSA is dated February 26, 2025, not February 27; the Wired profile was published August 10, 2024, not August 19). A handful of secondary details -- Beeple as a legal-fund donor, the precise disposition of the $500,000 'returned to victim,' and the still-unconfirmed Danish Zulfiqar arrest -- rest on thinner or self-reported sourcing and are flagged accordingly rather than treated as settled fact.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}