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 · MiCA Non-Compliant Exchange Risk Cluster (Post-July 1, 2026)
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 0 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464262250
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-01T22:36:06.809Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-01T22:36:16.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-01T22:36:16.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- J9eoMFU5vtt5EYgaWvbFsrFhfjaUb1Ncm1yV1bgCHbVm
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1897 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"23f044fc326463989b4ea28044d0d002","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T22:36:06.584Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2,"investigation_id":"93c361f5-3120-4191-bbf7-1dd0d214cf18","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"mica-non-compliant-exchange-risk-cluster-post-july-1-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of the five scored claims in the review (one was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer), one is unverifiable and none is disputed, giving a disputed rate of 20%. claim_findings[1] shows the cited CoinDesk article does not contain the 40 million EU-account figure, which the page states as fact twice. claim_findings[0] found the 'EU-wide halt' wording stronger than the evidence, and omission_findings[0] notes the page leaves out ESMA's challenge to Binance serving some EU users through a non-EU entity. The core regulatory framing and the AscendEX shutdown were supported, so the page is revised rather than denied. The review sampled only part of the page, so the remaining claims are unchecked.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-15,"scored_claims":5,"sequence_num":6,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"minor","from_band":"minor","reason":"omission_findings[0] is rated material: the page does not mention reporting that some EU users may still be served via Binance's Abu Dhabi entity, or ESMA's challenge to that. It also calls the Binance exit 'orderly'. This sits at the top of the minor band, not a harsher one, because the reviewer's confidence is low (0.35) and only the Binance and AscendEX claims were sampled."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}