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
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-13)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443520100
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T11:04:11.693Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7SxJFyD5cXjV4YMRSt7bxm5njZbrLycMRTV4aibgsqgR
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2130 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:04:11.504Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"66004779-b4f2-4848-838e-cc78e9d06099","new_score":0,"page_slug":"hormuzsafe-marine-services-authority-persian-gulf-marine-insurance-company-pgmic","prev_score":2,"reason":"The review confirms the page's central reporting is accurate: the July 29, 2026 OFAC designation of HormuzSafe and PGMIC for an IRGC-backed, Bitcoin-enabled extortion scheme targeting vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, the Zanjani connection, and the accompanying shadow-fleet vessel sweep are all well-supported by Treasury's own press release and corroborating outlets (22 of 30 claims fully confirmed). However, the review found a cluster of legal-basis and sourcing errors concentrated in the sanctions-mechanics sections. The page attributes Executive Order 13224 to HormuzSafe and PGMIC's own designation, when Treasury's text shows that authority applies only to the separately-designated Persian Gulf Strait Authority (claim_findings[5], disputed). It also implies HormuzSafe and PGMIC were designated under the petroleum-sector prong of Executive Order 13902, when Treasury actually cited the financial-sector prong for these two entities specifically, with the petroleum-sector prong applying instead to the bundled shadow-fleet vessels (claim_findings[4], partially_supported). Separately, the page misattributes a whistleblower award program run by FinCEN to OFAC (claim_findings[25]), states a Tether USDT freeze date roughly two weeks off from what independent reporting consistently shows (claim_findings[28]), and cites the wrong article URL for its own timeline entry on the scheme's first public report. These are meaningful accuracy issues for a page whose value rests on precise sanctions/regulatory detail, but they do not undermine the confirmed core allegation, and no coverage gap was flagged as high priority. That combination supports a moderate revision rather than approval or denial.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}