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 · DOJ Pig Butchering Civil Forfeiture — DC District July 2026
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 2 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443513225
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T10:06:48.982Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HyhTMmgEGdsm7Ch6uLV3yGf4hBoe5wN5Vi6gxb4FcHcp
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2073 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T10:06:48.649Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"114cd987-aa00-4a8e-afad-188bf025e2bb","new_score":2,"page_slug":"doj-pig-butchering-civil-forfeiture-dc-district-july-2026","prev_score":10,"reason":"The page's core claims held up well under review: the July 21, 2026 filing date, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia venue, the civil in rem forfeiture posture (no named defendants, allegations only), and the surrounding Strike Force enforcement timeline were all confirmed against DOJ, Secret Service, IRS, and FBI sources, with zero claims marked disputed, unverifiable, stale, or link-rotted out of 31 total (disputed_pct = 0%). The page also consistently and correctly separates this civil action from criminal charges filed elsewhere, a distinction other pages in this review batch have gotten wrong. That said, two findings affect the page's own headline figures. The summary's aggregate '470 victims' figure folds in a 270-count that the underlying sourcing labels as victim transactions, not confirmed unique victims -- a category conflation in a top-line number (claim_findings[2]). Separately, the MicMarkets complaint is presented as a '$1.23-1.77 million' range that appears to merge two distinct docket line items, where independent reporting converges on a single, unambiguous $1.77M/17-victim figure (claim_findings[10]); the reviewer flagged this as its sole high-priority coverage gap because it bears directly on the page's own stated $26.4 million aggregate total. Because these are specific, sourced inconsistencies in the page's own headline figures rather than mere omissions, and because the review instructs that high-priority, evidence-grounded coverage gaps should push toward revision even when the disputed percentage is low, a light revision to reconcile these two figures is warranted despite the otherwise strong review outcome.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}