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 · Sheldon Xia (BitMart Founder)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 18 → 10 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443511880
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T04:18:01.849Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BepcdEZ7s1PMgAq4GYcAeEPoeofzuzARYNHpDGmdxMwD
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1678 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T04:18:01.430Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"59b2a449-6704-4571-8359-2053d634e762","new_score":10,"page_slug":"sheldon-xia-bitmart-founder","prev_score":18,"reason":"Independent fact-checking confirmed the large majority of this page's claims (36 of 46), including nearly all direct quotations, dollar figures, and dates. Three claims were disputed: two quotations presented as verbatim statements by Sheldon Xia and by on-chain investigator ZachXBT do not match the actual reported wording, even though their underlying substance holds up (claim_findings[33], [37]), and a claim that BitMart 'did follow through' on its 2021 hack-compensation pledge is not supported by the sources cited for it and is contradicted by other reporting of unpaid victims and payment doubts (claim_findings[40]) — notably, an error that favors BitMart rather than making it look worse. Two further issues push this page toward revision despite a disputed-claim rate under the standard approval threshold: the page's own inference that Xia 'effectively made the wind-down decision unilaterally' is presented as established fact when no cited source supports it (claim_findings[18]), and a high-priority coverage gap notes that every wallet-balance claim in the page's 'critical' severity sections rests on secondhand Arkham/Lookonchain reporting rather than independent verification (coverage_gaps[2]). Together these findings warrant a light revision pass rather than an outright pass or denial.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}