Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← avoid.net

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 · Blockchain Capital
View on Solana ↗
Sequence
#4
Score
68 → 68 (0)
Cluster
mainnet-beta
Slot
457507888
Off-chain at
2026-10-16T04:42:21.033Z
Anchored at
2026-10-16T04:42:44.237Z
Block time
—

Independent verification

1. Database (off-chain)
3JndXyoyaknBQgF2tKHdo7D11MmuJLmeoW1h57RRCSwi
2. Recomputed (your browser)
computing…
3. On-chain (Solana memo)
fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1811 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"4cabd89807fb8ab2a44034d4cb17c31f","decided_at":"2026-10-16T04:42:20.793Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1176,"findings_hash":"7qjMwz9JTGSFbWs4pupb6gWfiJLmakyC3XJc9RbHiPQY","investigation_id":"fd98925b-474f-4834-bc05-5e457faa9029","mode":"findings_only","new_score":68,"page_content_hash":"13bd0257e48deb729a4c055deac233d644a8c08d9d57e3dd25422ed5e4894441","page_slug":"blockchain-capital","prev_score":68,"reason":"The page's core facts check out well against independent sources: the Bart Stephens SIM-swap theft, the X account hijacking, the Brock Pierce founding dispute, the $580M and $700M fundraises, the January 2025 dividend, the Templum trade claim, the NAV trajectory, and the near-total absence of secondary liquidity are all independently corroborated. The most substantive problem is in the Epstein/Coinbase section (and its mirrored timeline entry): both cited sources explicitly state Blockchain Capital's own 2014 investment 'was never consummated' and that Epstein invested independently, so describing the investment as having occurred 'alongside Blockchain Capital' overstates the firm's direct role in that transaction (its confirmed role was introducing the deal and later buying half of Epstein's stake in 2018, which is accurately described). A secondary, recurring pattern is citation mismatch: three separate 'no enforcement/regulatory actions' assertions are backed by sources that never discuss regulatory history, and the custody and portfolio-NAV claims are correct but sourced to articles that don't actually contain that information. No accepted community submissions were present to review.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}