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 · Circle Internet Financial
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 43 → 43 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514540
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:01.682Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2b8F524AhjF6RxqVnfhFDhbAgKD1F9GkcQBn7CKtYAVg
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2103 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:01.620Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"83786d67-bd35-49b7-bd52-5b4615943f5a","new_score":43,"page_slug":"circle-internet-financial","prev_score":43,"reason":"Blue-chip calibration review (Prompt A). Verdict: over-penalized. Page content is treated as accurate; the trust_score band is miscalibrated. Circle Internet Financial is a legitimate, NYSE-listed, OCC-conditionally-approved stablecoin issuer operating USDC, the second-largest stablecoin (~$78B circulating). Every incident driving the current WARNING score (43) involves either third-party hacks (Drift, Cetus, Mango, Nomad) where Circle is the target of policy criticism — not the perpetrator of fraud — or macroeconomic events (SVB collapse) where Circle was a depositor victim. The core dispute is whether Circle should proactively freeze USDC during hacks without court orders, a genuine compliance-philosophy disagreement now subject to active litigation (McCollum v. Circle) and regulatory resolution under the GENIUS Act framework. Circle's own regulatory posture is exceptionally strong: first-ever NYDFS BitLicense (2015), GENIUS Act compliance (2025), OCC national trust bank conditional approval (December 2025), and public equity listing. Under the post-policy band semantics, 20-49 WARNING is reserved for 'elevated fraud/loss risk or unresolved severe incident' — Circle's risk profile is a regulatory gray-area around freeze policy, not evidence of fraud or Ponzi mechanics. The CAUTIONARY band (50-69) with a score of 62 correctly captures that Circle is a legitimate operator with a live class-action lawsuit, documented compliance gaps under ZachXBT's investigation, and a publicly contested freeze policy, without mislabeling it as a fraud-adjacent entity. One factual error on the page (Centre Consortium dissolution dated January 2023 instead of August 2023) is noted but does not materially affect the risk assessment.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}