Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
Sign in
← 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 · NovaTech Ltd. / Cynthia Petion — $650M Crypto MLM Fraud
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#3
Score
2 → 0 (-5)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443515142
Off-chain at
2026-08-25T14:17:24.669Z
Anchored at
—
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
9oCiASXz4s9zKavUgjbdw2LYMBRbqY9bwYosqfN5REs6
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1681 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T14:17:23.952Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"7a131dc6-a35d-48ca-abb2-45ff139dbcbf","new_score":0,"page_slug":"novatech-ltd-cynthia-petion-650m-crypto-mlm-fraud","prev_score":2,"reason":"This review found the page's factual claims are strongly supported by primary regulatory sources — 30 of 35 claims were confirmed directly against the SEC complaint, the Maryland Final Order, the NY Attorney General's complaint, and the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal decisions, with no fabricated or non-supporting citations and no dead links. Against that record sits one clear factual error about a named individual: the page states Eddy Petion is 'named alongside her in all major regulatory actions' (claim_findings[7]), but the page's own cited Ontario Tribunal decisions name only Cynthia Petion and NovaTech Ltd. as respondents — Eddy Petion is not a party there. The page's 'three jurisdictions' framing (claim_findings[2]) also understates the regulatory record documented in the SEC's own complaint, and three findings (claim_findings[3], [13], [22]) show the page's description of the SEC case as simply 'pending' is now outdated by a March 2026 clerk's entry of default that fell within the page's own research window rather than developing after publication. None of this undermines the page's central allegations, but the specific overstatement about Eddy Petion's legal exposure and the two high-priority coverage gaps warrant a light correction rather than a clean approval.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}