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 · Emerson Sousa Pires
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457408698
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-15T22:44:25.024Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-15T22:44:55.168Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HUNuta4fTNgqtty8vgj62rY6bws1W6VaEkEFwCUZYymT
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1755 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"0e2f141348a4f76d40718d159b74004a","decided_at":"2026-10-15T22:44:24.743Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2381,"findings_hash":"FLdBGm51iUky63teo1LEYeCQ2zN66EttPiSKWUWuhU16","investigation_id":"2e0ff603-013f-44a5-82ea-a9c09709ed47","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"af4451e27886011b34209a85975ec08faebf2e7ae08e4f5428f1dd187fb41900","page_slug":"emerson-sousa-pires","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is substantively well-sourced and, on the claims I could independently verify against primary documents (I read the original SEC v. MCC complaint directly, and fetched the SEC, CFTC, DOJ/ICE, and Bloomberg Law/Law360 releases), nearly every dollar figure, investor count, judgment amount, judge name, and criminal charge checks out precisely, including the unusually specific $10.9 million / Mercedes / Harley Davidson / Land Rover / Lamborghini detail and the exact SEC quote. The one clear, recurring defect is the MCC complaint's filing date: the page states April 22, 2022 (and elsewhere 'May 2022'), but the complaint I fetched and read is clerk-stamped and docketed April 7, 2022 — a single underlying error that surfaces in two sections and one timeline entry. A second timeline entry (SEC press release 2022-119) is also misdated by about a month. The most significant substantive gap is the complete omission of the SEC's own June 2023 EmpiresX default judgment against Pires (~$40.8M), a third enforcement action distinct from both judgments the page does cover, which materially understates his total disclosed regulatory liability.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}