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 · Cryptomus / Xeltox Enterprises Ltd.
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-15)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443516562
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T19:21:52.425Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FR4WxeiUWAdMmyWQCdN4hFKc9Vt7rYHsy2TFaDmqCK1B
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2196 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:21:52.266Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"07e63eaa-1d75-45b0-8fef-47a315a054fd","new_score":0,"page_slug":"cryptomus-xeltox-enterprises-ltd","prev_score":2,"reason":"An independent fact-check found the page's central claims — the FINTRAC penalty amount and grounds, the BC Securities Commission order's issuance, the Federal Court appeal, and TRM Labs' Cryptomus-Heleket linkage analysis — solidly supported by primary regulatory sources, and confirmed that the Cryptomus/Xeltox operating relationship is established directly by two independent regulators rather than inferred by the page (claim_findings[0]). The review did surface two disputed claims — a statistic on 56 exchanges cashing out to sanctioned Russian banks that is credited to TRM Labs but actually originates from independent researcher Richard Sanders via Krebs on Security (claim_findings[7]), and a comparison to a prior FINTRAC penalty that is misdated by a full year (claim_findings[4]) — plus one unverifiable detail about the platform's founder (claim_findings[12]). Most consequentially, the page describes a May 2025 BC Securities Commission order as an open, critical-severity enforcement action without disclosing that the regulator's own Executive Director withdrew the extension application days later, letting the order lapse; this fact is publicly available on BCSC's own hearings page and its omission leaves the page's characterization of current regulatory status out of date (claim_findings[10]). That item falls outside the disputed/unverifiable claim count under the review's scoring rules, but it is flagged here as a high-priority correction alongside the misattribution and date error. Taken together — a 15% disputed/unverifiable rate, solid support for the page's core allegations, and three high-priority correction items including one with real consequence for how a reader understands the company's current regulatory standing — the page merits revision rather than outright approval or denial.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}