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 · WhiteBIT Coin
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 38 → 18 (-20)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443526523
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T16:10:31.921Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- FQJiVJEdoE589FxFgi533Xgxr94g6hEaxaXyjYx3LS14
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1818 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T16:10:31.501Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"750f207a-72ac-4e22-9e78-a86daa24d1d2","new_score":18,"page_slug":"whitebit-coin","prev_score":38,"reason":"An independent fact-check of the page's 71 checkable claims found that roughly 31% (7 disputed, 15 unverifiable) could not be confirmed as accurate, which is above the threshold this platform uses to flag a page for additional scrutiny. The most serious error is a two-entry mistake naming Dmytro Shentsev as the person who lost Ukrainian citizenship by 2023 presidential decree, when the documented decree names his son, Mykyta Shentsev (claim_findings[21], [58]). Reviewers also found a citation mismatch on the S&P index count (the page says 'five' indices but names only four, while its own cited press release lists the fifth) (claim_findings[15]), date errors on the Four Dragons hack, a Ukrainian law-enforcement investigation, and the token's all-time-high price (claim_findings[59], [65], [66]), and an outdated Regulatory Status section that discusses an unresolved Lithuania licensing transition without mentioning WhiteBIT's subsequent MiCA authorization via Austria (claim_findings[43]). The page's central allegations — the disputed ownership structure, the exchange hacks, the Ukrainian criminal investigation, and Russia's 'undesirable organization' designation — held up under review; most of the disputed and unverifiable items are precision, attribution, or sourcing problems rather than fabricated claims. Given that mix, and a reviewer confidence of 0.72, the page is being sent back for revision and placed under review rather than delisted.","score_delta":-20,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}