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 · Iran IRGC Crypto Exchange Network (OFAC Sectoral Sanctions)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464352112
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T03:56:48.886Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T03:57:09.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T03:57:09.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- DRE9uYQuTPCYd2dbbRmyqffHurjZjbuscJhAZc3mwEsC
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1596 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"31c6836b3972b85c6c9f68c273651983","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T03:56:48.673Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.25,"investigation_id":"4b7ea583-49b4-4c5e-9cf2-b3cf0ff45c28","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"iran-irgc-crypto-exchange-network-ofac-sectoral-sanctions","prev_score":2,"reason":"Of 9 claim findings, 1 was left out of the count because the source blocked the reviewer, and 2 of the remaining 8 could not be verified (claim_findings[1] and claim_findings[6]), which is 25%. The core designations, dates, legal authorities and dollar figures were confirmed against Treasury releases and analytics-firm posts (claim_findings[2], [3], [4], [5], [7]). The problems are a timeline line that attaches Treasury's general 'billions laundered' language to the Aug 7 action, whose itemized figures are in the millions (claim_findings[0]); a Bessent 'is working' quote that was not found; and an uncited claim about named Ramzinex co-founders' family ties. The only omission is minor and the page already reflects the subject's sanctioned status, so no escalation applies; reviewer confidence was moderate, so the penalty stays near the middle of the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-10,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}