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 · Dunamu / Upbit
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 30 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443522309
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T22:07:23.270Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Dijnqvz96QesorCzJ5mCeiqAUQww7RkYhWrFSxJjE75Q
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2039 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T22:07:22.943Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f4b7d1d8-e03d-4c79-be28-f2db3d0ce5f5","new_score":30,"page_slug":"dunamu-upbit","prev_score":38,"reason":"The reviewer's per-claim array (38 items, not the mismatched 37-item summary block) found zero disputed claims and a disputed_pct of 2.6%, comfortably inside the approve band; the page's core narrative -- the November 2025 hack, the suspected Lazarus attribution, the confirmed 2019 Lazarus/Andariel attribution, and the AML/KYC and FSS sanction proceedings -- is independently confirmed (claim_findings[2], [3], [16], [20], [21]-[24], [28]). However, two of the eight partially_supported findings are not cosmetic: claim_findings[7] shows the page describes the Naver Financial deal as 'consolidating Dunamu's position' when independent reporting says Naver Financial is acquiring Dunamu outright in a ~$10.3B share-swap -- the direction of the transaction is reversed. claim_findings[31] shows the page describes an April 2026 court ruling as a 'partial' reversal of the FIU suspension when it was a full reversal, and omits that the FIU appealed on April 30, 2026, leaving the matter unresolved rather than settled -- a point the reviewer separately flagged as a high-priority coverage gap because it leaves readers with a materially incomplete picture of an active regulatory dispute. That structural omission, not the page's other high-priority gap (which is a sourcing-quality suggestion to cite primary regulator documents, not an error), is what moves this page from a straight approve to a light revise. The remaining partially_supported items (market share, trading volume, an unverified investigating-body name, two date placeholders, and a one-day discrepancy on an unrelated BonkDAO incident) are minor precision issues consistent with the page's otherwise strong sourcing.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}