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 · Unicoin
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 8 → 3 (-5)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 425570182
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-10T15:10:40.267Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7zpXjxWoUGAmX5qknD8RU4mrZovgCGEN6Seok6m2c3s9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1414 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-10T15:10:40.050Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"d7e8a952-0d3a-4635-b2fb-1f25cda1eac5","new_score":3,"page_slug":"unicoin","prev_score":8,"reason":"The review confirmed 23 of 27 claims directly against Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources, with zero claims outright disputed. Two claims are partially supported: claim_findings[7] (38 million certificates distributed 'without receiving payment') mischaracterizes the SEC's allegation, which specifically targets sales to prohibited investors rather than non-payment; and claim_findings[11] ('never took title') accurately reflects the complaint but is actively contested in Unicoin's own motion to dismiss. One background claim (claim_findings[22], 2015 founding year) is unverifiable against available records, which more consistently point to 2011 for the predecessor entity TransparentBusiness. No link rot or stale citations were found on any critical source. Two high-priority coverage gaps — absence of on-chain token contract analysis and no PACER docket check for post-August 2025 filings — indicate the page warrants expansion before it can be considered complete. A minor score adjustment is applied; no status change is warranted given the strength of core sourcing.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}