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
- #2
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443506398
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-10T13:43:42.196Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5vL1A8MRDMWgkztVB17oPv1RGf3xRRBq6DxpYwwenMK4
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1252 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-10T13:43:41.970Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"66c63ff3-4d66-4fac-81e6-e753ddf53383","new_score":0,"page_slug":"91m-bitcoin-social-engineering-theft-hardware-wallet-impersonation-august-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core factual scaffolding — the $91M Aug 2025 theft, the $243M Genesis creditor precedent and its prosecution, the $282M Jan 2026 escalation, and the Coldcard firmware exploit — is well-supported by multiple independent, credible sources, and the page appropriately hedges on unconfirmed details (impersonated brand names, the theft transaction hash). The most significant issue found is an internally inconsistent Wave 1 statistic for the Coldcard exploit, where the page combines a BTC/time figure from one source with an address count from a different, conflicting source. One minor misattribution (a 'largest ever' superlative attributed specifically to CoinDesk) was also found. No dead links were encountered among the sample of cited URLs checked, and accepted_submissions is empty so no community evidence required review.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}