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.
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457435668
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-16T00:21:54.886Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-16T00:22:13.101Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 2DdU4CEqiTy69jhVX2K1KuKiYxGg837rbrSRMfxy584o
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2167 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"04a9a533f01f52b7fba77cf7450f3058","decided_at":"2026-10-16T00:21:54.740Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2727,"findings_hash":"6L7KDFxmcH6x5vx5oBUkAVMVFf5CZgoqvUwAibqipspS","investigation_id":"f28d76b9-cdf1-4557-be03-b49d1155a986","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"514e282df9b978312e6a0dfbdaae79cd86b669f5c5d8aa21a14d91617564f6d3","page_slug":"2026-violent-crypto-wrench-attack-wave-h1-chainalysis-report","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's headline statistics — the Chainalysis 46-incident/$30M figure, the CertiK 52-incident/$124.18M figure, the 11.8x and 33.3% YoY increases, the France concentration percentages, the historical 2024/2025 comparisons, and the French tax-official and Waltio breach narratives — all check out against the primary reports and independent reporting, and two of the three directly-quoted Chainalysis lines are verbatim accurate. However, the review surfaced several real defects: two sentences present quotes in quotation marks attributed to Chainalysis ('bypasses digital security controls entirely' and 'the single highest-correlation protective factor') that could not be located in the cited Chainalysis blog post and appear to be fabricated or invented phrasing; the Binance France CEO incident misstates the arrest circumstances (independent reporting places the arrest in Lyon after a public-transit chase, not during 'a second attempted burglary in Hauts-de-Seine'); the Sillytuna case overstates a reported injury ('cuts described as made with an axe' vs. the source's 'axes held over hands and feet' and bruising); the London jury conviction is described as uniform across all five defendants when the actual charges and outcomes varied by defendant; and the Nunez incident count is vaguely rounded down to 'more than 70' when reporting (including the page's own cited source) consistently gives the specific figure of 77. One claim (the $17.1M Waltio-linked kidnapping figure) could not be verified either way.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}