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
- Sequence
- #9
- Score
- 11 → 1 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462277235
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-28T00:41:37.878Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-28T00:41:51.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-28T00:41:51.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BfGEUgddHr96aQm89JCs7UsQnYWCJWZrLwYM1utTUc16
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1514 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"03f137d8d9247b3ac7c687e3eddceeca","band_override":null,"blocked_count":2,"decided_at":"2026-10-28T00:41:37.551Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2,"investigation_id":"a9cdc7b5-15a1-4e71-857b-15faed45731b","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":1,"page_slug":"coldcard-coinkite-firmware-seed-entropy-exploit-multi-actor-august-2026","prev_score":11,"reason":"Of 12 claims checked, 2 were set aside because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[5], claim_findings[11]), leaving 10; 2 of those (claim_findings[2], claim_findings[6]) could not be found in the cited sources, giving 20% disputed or unverifiable, which falls in the minor band. The core technical account, the O'Beirne allegation and the Ontario class action were confirmed or largely supported. The weaker points are the first-wave '41-minute' detail, the destroyed-stock claim, and the 2026-08-04 timeline entry that pairs a $140M figure with the 1,596 BTC tally (claim_findings[4]). The reviewer also flagged a high-priority gap: Galaxy's primary reports are not cited. The one omission is minor, and the subject is still operating, so no escalation applies.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-10,"scored_claims":10,"sequence_num":9,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}