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 · Coinsbuy
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 25 → 25 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 457932198
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-17T06:11:04.365Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-17T06:11:08.858Z
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- J51sKqmDa3BjbvXaDpsMti1fDYFLxpeYN9hwFpFnp5jp
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2195 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"87324e2d9f7e34743cc4f094f5572b82","decided_at":"2026-10-17T06:11:04.240Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2188,"findings_hash":"4QEgdLqH2YXgVN32aRF2MUx9VfHdg87yMCW1bH8ymXen","investigation_id":"640a3b11-d577-4a31-a831-53ed8823ab7a","mode":"findings_only","new_score":25,"page_content_hash":"38d18b44d405cfe028f5fd92ffc38aad997bcd0cefb2484fcce2a5293a8babc8","page_slug":"coinsbuy","prev_score":25,"reason":"The page's core narrative of the August 9, 2026 Coinsbuy breach — amounts, wallet counts, chains, the FixedFloat/ChangeNOW/BingX laundering chain, the Monero conversion, the company's reserve-funded reimbursement statement, and the $100,000 reward — is well corroborated across CoinDesk, CoinTelegraph, Decrypt, CryptoTimes, crypto.news, Crypto Briefing and TechTimes, and I found no outlet contradicting these figures. Two real defects surfaced: the Cryptwerk '1.4 out of 5 (based on limited reviews)' characterization misstates a listing that explicitly shows zero reviews, and the Industry Context section's TRM Labs statistics (207 hacks, $972M, and the 2025 comparison) are true and independently verifiable but are not actually supported by the PYMNTS article cited for them, which never mentions TRM Labs or a 207-hack count. A third, smaller issue is a mismatched Wayback archive_url for the PYMNTS source that resolves to an unrelated furniture-retail article. Several claims sourced to PitchBook, Crunchbase, and Dun & Bradstreet (headquarters, founding year, registered address) could not be independently checked because those sites block automated fetching, so they are marked unverifiable rather than confirmed or disputed. The single accepted community submission is a duplicate of an already-cited, accurate source and contained no adversarial instructions. The most consequential gap is that the entire evidentiary record is frozen at the initial week of reporting (Aug 9-12, 2026) with no indication of what, if anything, has been learned or resolved in the roughly two months since.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}