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
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 30 → 30 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443561444
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:37:41.033Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- CphFHuCwnFvJAZgfXkfmVoSL8sPK68rz5PeaU8EtzifB
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1282 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"8d107fca2fd519e8272e9247160009d2","decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:37:40.915Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.05,"investigation_id":"6f832839-464e-4a68-aa40-a4a3a3db2594","new_score":30,"page_slug":"coinsbuy-exchange-august-2026-hot-wallet-drain","prev_score":30,"reason":"The page's core factual claims — amounts stolen, wallet counts, the Bridgers cross-chain link, FixedFloat/ChangeNOW/Monero laundering path, and Coinsbuy's public response and bounty — are consistently corroborated across more than a dozen independent news outlets and were verified directly against several cited sources. Two claims show minor attribution imprecision (crediting PeckShield/BlockWatchdog as 'among the first' to characterize the incident when the page's own later section credits an individual Telegram investigator as first, and attributing an attack-vector assessment to GoPlus that most outlets credit to BlockWatchdog), and two negative/absence claims (no law enforcement action, no attribution) are inherently unverifiable rather than disputed. No claims were found to be disputed, stale, or link-rotted.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}