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 · Binance
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 38 → 38 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 426514973
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-14T23:16:24.254Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 96Jf8vTpseHrpduCMoEMkEyCqnkTKLL3a2JysxCW6FRJ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2317 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-14T23:16:24.197Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"ee0b172d-1fd3-47c7-812a-115748f8108a","new_score":38,"page_slug":"binance","prev_score":38,"reason":"Blue-chip calibration review (Prompt A). Verdict: over-penalized. Page content is treated as accurate; the trust_score band is miscalibrated. Binance is a legitimate operating exchange — the world's largest by trading volume — that committed serious but acknowledged criminal violations (BSA, sanctions, AML) for which it paid $4.3B and accepted dual compliance monitorships. The entity is not fraudulent in the Ponzi/exit-scam sense: user funds have not been misappropriated by Binance itself, the SAFU fund covered the 2019 hack, and the exchange continues operating under heavy regulatory oversight. The current score of 38 sits at the low end of WARNING and is modestly over-penalized because: (a) two security incidents (2019 hot-wallet hack and 2022 BNB bridge exploit) were suffered-by-entity events that should not weight equally with own-conduct fraud; (b) the SEC lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in May 2025, removing a major legal overhang; (c) CZ was pardoned and the exchange secured a major ADGM global license — both material post-2023 trust signals the page documents but the score does not fully reflect; (d) the page's own \"Market Position and Trust Signals\" section lists $170B+ proof-of-reserves and the world's most heavily monitored compliance program, which are inconsistent with a score near the CRITICAL boundary. However, the band (WARNING) remains correct: an active March 2026 DOJ Iran sanctions probe, $1.7B+ in flagged flows to Iranian entities, a fired internal investigator, a pending $1B+ Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit, and still-active compliance monitorships represent genuine unresolved material risk. A score of 45 — still firmly WARNING — better balances the severity of the admitted criminal conduct and active investigations against the evidence of ongoing legitimacy, user-fund protection, and post-settlement compliance progress. The page does not describe a fraudulent entity and should not approach the CRITICAL band boundary.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}