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 · Tokenize Xchange / AmazingTech Pte Ltd
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462187576
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T19:23:07.816Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T19:23:16.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T19:23:16.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6oVDYhKpoAKXZ4LLDdjgLzBeGaURWsCmkfdy2GQQMby3
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1963 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"0d4923d7c710e326f087b17d3e70f976","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T19:23:07.525Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.5556,"investigation_id":"29e280d9-a486-4cc4-9c01-b77c07026b8a","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"tokenize-xchange-amazingtech-pte-ltd","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 8 checked claims, 3 were disputed and 2 could not be verified (5/8, 62.5%), which falls in the failed-factcheck range by count. The page was not denied because the disputes are date errors rather than core allegations: claim_findings[1] puts MAS complaints on 1 July where MAS says mid-July, and claim_findings[2] and [3] date the liquidation order 3 October where reporting indicates 30 September (one defect, counted twice). The two unverifiable items were not contradicted, and the MAS action, the 31 July charge, the S$266.3m versus S$2.6m shortfall and the 272-plaintiff suit were confirmed (claim_findings[0], [4], [5], [6]). The review was also only partly sourced (confidence 0.6), and the page omits the 2026 asset restriction order (omission_findings[0], material) and has no updates after December 2025, so it needs correction and expansion.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":false,"band":null,"from_band":"significant","reason":"The 2026 asset restriction order is a material omission, but it adds to a page whose core facts are confirmed and does not contradict it; the subject is already described as shut down and in liquidation. The omission is handled through the significant-issues banner, under_investigation status and the high-priority coverage gap, not by a harsher band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}