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.

Sequence
#3
Score
207 (-13)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
443520057
Off-chain at
2026-08-26T10:07:47.440Z
Anchored at
Block time

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
DMaXQ7SY8J26iPcWrCEE3Lm7L9CuwMkJot7gBPptZLZy
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2235 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T10:07:47.285Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"806b1308-839e-448e-b7c1-b36060b36e6c","new_score":7,"page_slug":"h1-2026-crypto-project-shutdown-wave-100-projects","prev_score":20,"reason":"Independent recount confirms the reviewer's math: 7 of 45 claims (2 disputed, 5 unverifiable) are disputed or unverifiable, a 15.6% rate that falls in the low end of the revise band, and the page's central 100+ project headline count holds up against four independent trackers (claim_findings[0]) with no internal contradiction, unlike comparable aggregate pages in this review batch. The delta is pushed toward the higher end of the band because one disputed finding is substantive rather than cosmetic: the page describes AscendEX's July 2026 shutdown as ordinary 'volume and market-share erosion' (claim_findings[22]) when the exchange's own announcement and independent reporting instead describe a failed EU MiCA license, a collapsed liquidity deal, frozen withdrawals, near-empty reserves, and a flagged possible insolvency process -- with no source in the page's bibliography covering AscendEX at all. On a page whose stated purpose includes asset-recovery guidance, understating an active insolvency risk as routine competitive decline is a more consequential error than an overstated one, because it could leave a reader with funds on that exchange less alarmed than the facts warrant. Additional lower-severity issues -- two statistics misattributed to a Cryptopolitan article that a direct fetch does not contain (claim_findings[37] and [41]), a threat-actor percentage that conflates a narrow hacking cluster with a broader category also reported by the page's own cited source (claim_findings[32]), and one Bitcoin.com News figure not locatable in the cited article (claim_findings[7]) -- reflect a pattern of imprecise sourcing but not fabrication of the page's core narrative, and sit alongside extensive independently corroborated detail on BitMEX, Movement Labs, Loopring, Nifty Gateway, Polygon zkEVM, and other named closures.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}