Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Emerson Sousa Pires
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
20 (-8)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443516766
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T19:38:43.214Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
6PFwTszuVdX1UvPriis2sFEFhvnogyWtphe4TEXoYfqv
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2211 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:38:43.036Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"2e0ff603-013f-44a5-82ea-a9c09709ed47","new_score":0,"page_slug":"emerson-sousa-pires","prev_score":2,"reason":"This page's central factual architecture holds up under review: the separation between Pires's civil-only SEC liability in the Mining Capital Coin matter and his combined criminal-and-civil exposure in the separate EmpiresX matter is accurate and is not blended with co-defendant Capuci's criminal exposure, and the major dollar judgments, dates, and personally-attributed figures (including the $10.9 million spending detail) were independently corroborated (claim_findings[0-5,7-8,10-11,13-18]). Three issues keep it from a clean approval. The page attributes the phrase 'crypto fugitives' to Bloomberg Law, but the fact-check traced the phrase to a Law360 headline cited in the same section -- Bloomberg Law's own articles do not use it (claim_findings[9], disputed). The page's summary and indictment section describe the EmpiresX scheme as generating '$100 million in investor losses,' but DOJ's own language describes that figure as funds raised or amassed, and the CFTC's parallel judgment on the same conduct rests on a much smaller $41.6M-raised/$32M-disgorged basis, so the phrasing overstates the scale of harm (claim_findings[12], partially supported). And the claim that Pires was personally arrested during Brazil's Operation Yang traces to an unverified reader tip in the page's own cited source, which explicitly says it could not confirm his identity among those arrested (claim_findings[6], partially supported). Applying the reviewer's own formula, (1 disputed + 1 unverifiable) / 20 total claims lands at exactly 10%, the line between approval and minor revision; because two of the four non-confirmed findings sit in the page's summary and higher-severity sections and shape how a reader perceives the scale of harm and personal culpability, this page falls on the revision side of that boundary rather than being approved outright.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}