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 · Best Wallet / BEST Token Presale
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 22 → 10 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443520799
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-26T11:45:54.611Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CN3zyJqmZ8ox7JJ87PnXZuZ1qMej36K4jxPL6dri3WMH
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1677 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:45:54.371Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"f5223fd4-de48-4448-ab1f-23ef5554ee9c","new_score":10,"page_slug":"best-wallet-best-token-presale","prev_score":22,"reason":"The review confirms the page's central claims: the FCA's March 2025 unauthorised-firm warning (claim_findings[1], [7], [8]) was verified directly against the FCA's own site, and the Nov 28, 2025 exchange-listing price collapse (claim_findings[3]) is corroborated in detail. But a handful of specific claims do not hold up as cited. The tokenomics breakdown (claim_findings[21]) is disputed: the page's 35/25/10/8% figures sum to only 78%, omitting three categories that account for the remaining 22%, which creates a misleading impression of an unexplained allocation gap rather than the actual, fully-accounted breakdown. Two named individuals, YouTube promoters Clay Bro and Austin Hilton, are not actually contained in either source cited for that claim (claim_findings[35]) — a citation error involving real people that should be fixed or removed. The Coinsult audit claim rests on no retrievable audit report from Coinsult itself (claim_findings[38]), only secondary summaries. The bulk of the 12 unverifiable findings, however, are lower-severity: raise totals and adoption figures are corroborated only by promotional or aggregator-style presale media rather than contradicted by better evidence, which reflects a known limitation of this content category rather than a factual failure of the page.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}