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
- 457948923
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-17T07:11:04.924Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-17T07:11:17.987Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CeKGDsoPkcgHjuqKR2wRxYKAP9KbJFmpuyeeYUDAQgyJ
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1779 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"c3a2d852f194c9260157da041fef82ce","decided_at":"2026-10-17T07:11:04.784Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2667,"findings_hash":"HMEYhgdSDqvRwnQ4xdLc4TN9saRhdygQTBmMRfsph7Sq","investigation_id":"3e6b67e8-7352-44d7-981a-607117c1c555","mode":"findings_only","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"a3e711cad4fc5feb2887bec95b7fd4a72b08e7acd761b84fe3676b2de75bb217","page_slug":"hong-kong-insurance-agent-romance-scam-fake-crypto-app-3-3m-july-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The core facts of the case -- the HK$26M/$3.3M loss, the victim profile, the 800%+ fabricated returns, the HK$22M wired plus HK$4M cash breakdown, the 25-cases/HK$70M weekly aggregate, the October 2025 taskforce, the 2025 fraud statistics, and the Operation Atlantic details -- are all independently corroborated by multiple credible outlets and are accurately represented. The weakest part of the page is the 'Broader Weekly Context' section: it overstates Fun Coffee investor losses by roughly a factor of ten (claiming 'exceeding HK$1 billion' when the cited source and subsequent reporting put it at roughly HK$100-118 million, likely conflating the scheme's own marketing claim about company assets with investor losses), and it frames a Seoul, South Korea staking-fraud case as part of the 'Hong Kong crypto-fraud environment' with no supporting citation. A secondary stablecoin claim also overstates what its cited source says. One timeline date is off by a day relative to the earliest confirmed police post/press coverage. None of these affect the central narrative of the insurance-agent case itself, which is solid.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}