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 · Unicoin
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 8 → 8 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425570177
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-10T15:10:40.194Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4yXAjGhAMCqyB4kGA48RFgBgVmgnhrqRuRuLQhFEreNH
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1269 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-10T15:10:40.050Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"d7e8a952-0d3a-4635-b2fb-1f25cda1eac5","new_score":8,"page_slug":"unicoin","prev_score":8,"reason":"The page is well-sourced and substantially accurate. The vast majority of factual claims are directly confirmed by the SEC's own press release, litigation release, and complaint, as corroborated by multiple independent news outlets. Two claims are partially supported: the characterization of Konanykhin's 38 million certificate sales as 'without receiving payment' understates the specificity of the SEC's allegation (which targets sales to prohibited investors, not necessarily non-payment); and the 'Unicoin never took title' claim accurately reflects the complaint but is specifically contested in Unicoin's motion to dismiss. The founding-year claim of 2015 is unverifiable against the available record, which more consistently points to 2011 as the founding year of the predecessor entity TransparentBusiness. No cited URLs were found to be dead. No claims were found to directly contradict a more credible current source.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}