Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Sequence
#3
Score
2 → 0 (-7)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443516112
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T19:00:25.085Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
99zdiubihkmxNWDTNH5yA1tq2L1YZ9VF5oafZZZTjxjm
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2123 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:00:24.779Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"b2b72b73-0877-46ee-a67d-82c1f20a2ebe","new_score":0,"page_slug":"fun-coffee-gcm-project","prev_score":2,"reason":"Of 27 factual claims checked, 19 were fully confirmed and none were contradicted by any source — the reviewer found zero disputed claims. Per the applicable formula, disputed_pct is calculated from disputed plus unverifiable claims combined ((0+4)/27 = 14.8%), which places the page in the minor-issues band regardless of the fact that the disputed count itself is zero. The page's core narrative holds up well: the SFC regulatory listing, the collapse timeline, the multi-jurisdiction arrest details, and — notably — the careful separation of the HK$104 million police-confirmed loss figure from the unconfirmed HK$1 billion investor chat-group allegation (claim_findings[0], [19]) are all solidly sourced, including directly against SFC.hk. That distinction is handled more carefully here than on a related page in this index that cited the larger figure without the same caveat. Set against that, two claims stated on the page as settled fact could not be independently corroborated beyond a single documented instance or not at all: the assertion that the scheme's promotion expanded into mainland China and South Korea (claim_findings[9]) and that authorities contacted multiple entertainers about the case (claim_findings[16]). The page also characterizes the SFC's inaction (no cease-and-desist order) as constituting 'a formal regulatory caution under Hong Kong securities law' (claim_findings[3]), a legal framing the SFC's own alert page does not state. A cited recruitment-pay figure also conflicts with a companion report from one of the page's own sources (claim_findings[6]). These are editorial overreach and detail-level issues, not core allegations in dispute, and none of them touch the page's central finding that this was a fraudulent scheme.","score_delta":-7,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}