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_approve · DMM Bitcoin
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 52 (+42)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426697952
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-15T19:29:59.667Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- F29fy7nNV4JZn65Z2m125pawnpLtLJdBZTcywavsW2K8
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1483 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-15T19:29:59.396Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"e8972dc5-6b5b-4ab9-9e05-1974d92b8c54","new_score":52,"page_slug":"dmm-bitcoin","prev_score":10,"reason":"The page's core narrative is confirmed by authoritative sources including the FBI/DC3/NPA joint statement and official FSA records. The single 'disputed' finding (claim_findings[12]) is a timeline date 25 days off for the FSA business improvement order — a minor precision error, not a dispute of any substantive allegation. The four 'partially_supported' findings are similarly limited to timeline date imprecision and a characterization nuance ('supply-chain' vs. social engineering), none of which affect the page's core conclusions. The content warrants approval. Separately, the current score of 10 (CRITICAL) is a significant mis-calibration under fraud-likelihood semantics: the primary incident is a suffered North Korean state-sponsored hack confirmed by the FBI, customers were fully transferred to SBI VC Trade with no loss, and the FSA order addressed operational negligence rather than fraud. Under the anti-conflation principle, being hacked does not equal fraud; the correct band is CAUTIONARY. A score of 52 is applied, reflecting the hack-victim status offset by confirmed own-negligence in security architecture.","score_delta":42,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}