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 · Kronos Research
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 61 → 61 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464345750
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T03:33:53.958Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T03:34:25.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T03:34:25.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 47PXdgQARdYS4DepVYz5dx51wuoXtWQLiCFM44Amt1FM
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1492 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"fb1aa5133f9fb8199b7083d8284cb9fb","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T03:33:53.736Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.1429,"investigation_id":"4f02a3ce-393a-4e1c-a5f7-710e1a35a9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":61,"page_slug":"kronos-research","prev_score":61,"reason":"One of the seven checked claims (about 14%) could not be verified: claim_findings[0], the statement that Kronos said losses would be covered internally with no partners affected, is not in the cited Cointelegraph article and conflicts with the documented WOO X disruption. claim_findings[3] and [4] are partly supported: the NT$42 million figure is not in the cited source, and 2023-08-27 is the article's publication date, not the conviction date. The core incident facts (the $25M theft, the WOO X timeline and figures, the $1.4M insider case) are confirmed. The review found no unmentioned shutdown or sanction, only minor omissions (trading resuming, the Proxima rename), so a minor-issues revision is warranted. Reviewer confidence is moderate and several cited sources were not read, so the penalty stays in the lower-middle of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}