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 · Bitcoin
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 452518945
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-02T05:42:02.610Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-02T05:42:33.780Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 7baWwBnwSXRAwwkasfz1QDFJyrFFvRt9e7jXq9xjX3yG
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2246 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"57283959f12945bb25ed42205b934f2d","decided_at":"2026-10-02T05:42:02.401Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.1333,"findings_hash":"8Bt1FYzFRpCxoca7oNBeJjYNtVTKJaGCr6Frv7uoYRer","investigation_id":"9f5fde42-7cff-4a97-a8c9-369d119c884c","mode":"findings_only","new_score":62,"page_content_hash":"3671190981659b3fd4e9d1af4f042879543c30ec7db69cd9d1fd2e063e1869c3","page_slug":"bitcoin","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's core historical and regulatory facts (whitepaper date, genesis block, halving schedule, CFTC/SEC classifications, ETF approvals, the Craig Wright rulings, Mt. Gox collapse) are accurate and well-supported by both the page's own citations and independent verification. Two findings are significant and should be corrected: the Bitcoin ATM fraud section states a '58% YoY increase' that directly contradicts the page's own cited ABC News source, which reports 33%; and the Nature-journal citation for the PM2.5/1.9-million-people mining-pollution statistic points to an unrelated Scientific Reports article on energy/water use rather than the actual Nature Communications study that produced that finding (affecting the section prose and two separate source-list entries). Secondary issues include a conflation of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve's size at signing (~198,000 BTC) with its much larger current holdings (~328,372 BTC), an EIA citation whose source article states different energy figures than the page quotes, a stale reference to New York's mining moratorium (expired November 2024, not renewed) presented without that context, and an attribution of the $24.2B illicit-transaction figure jointly to Chainalysis and TRM Labs when it is specifically a Chainalysis estimate. The market cap and renewable-energy-share figures could not be independently pinned down and are marked unverifiable rather than wrong. No accepted community submissions exist for this page, so evidence_review is empty; coverage gaps include on-chain concentration analysis and sanctions/law-enforcement history, both of which fit the platform's stated scope.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}