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_approve · Bitrefill
- Sequence
- #12
- Score
- 78 → 78 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464789833
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-03T05:59:19.809Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-03T05:59:42.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-03T05:59:42.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BJ77CX7DEzxg5GCBC3B5YPSrwLgTg7MX24nfMCwuXQ3A
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1485 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"635070dbd0159132d3ee801d1bfffd1a","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-03T05:59:19.511Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.0909,"investigation_id":"8038ecc2-39f1-4530-bfdf-f87bf4b49de2","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":78,"page_slug":"bitrefill","prev_score":78,"reason":"No claim was disputed. Of 11 claims, 9 were confirmed, 1 was partially supported (claim_findings[4], the KYC data statement, where the core point holds) and 1 could not be checked (claim_findings[6], the Bitrefill blog founding-year quote; the 2014 CoinDesk date was confirmed and the discrepancy is disclosed on the page). One Trustpilot finding (claim_findings[8]) was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer. That leaves about 10% unverified and 0% disputed, which is within the approval band. The core incident claims (dates, 18,500 records, hot wallet drains, tentative Lazarus attribution, responder firms) are backed by Decrypt, The Block and teiss. The only omission found is minor (the downtime after the breach lasted longer than the page implies), and the company is still operating.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":11,"sequence_num":12,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}