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 · QuadrigaCX / Gerald Cotten
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 2 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424182422
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T05:42:12.878Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BeEVmj9gbXwh13stdRYyATUZRqML6eRshkKep16JZPSX
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1415 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T05:42:12.673Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"9a281837-9fb3-41f5-a6b6-380b20816e6c","new_score":2,"page_slug":"quadrigacx-gerald-cotten","prev_score":2,"reason":"The reviewer assessed 37 claims and found 33 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 2 unverifiable, and 0 disputed, yielding a disputed_pct of 8.1% — within the approval band. The two unverifiable findings (claim_findings[28] on C$46M total recovery, claim_findings[31] on platform-wide trading volumes) result from a 403 access error on the OSC report URL during review, not from contradicting evidence; both figures are internally consistent with the confirmed record. The partially supported claim (claim_findings[11], C$24M transferred to Cotten and Robertson) reflects a distinction between amounts transferred and amounts recovered, not a fabrication, and the underlying OSC attribution is plausible. Two high-priority coverage gaps — the 2024–2025 BC unexplained wealth order and forfeiture ruling against Patryn, and the absence of a dedicated RCMP criminal investigation status section — represent meaningful opportunities for expansion but do not undermine the accuracy of existing content. Reviewer confidence is 0.88, supporting a firm approval.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}