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_revise · TEXITcoin / MineTXC / Blockchain Mint
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 26 → 26 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 462054129
- Off-chain at
- 2026-10-27T11:29:52.577Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-10-27T11:30:17.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-10-27T11:30:17.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 85sYJtteghHgcVFusqeyNCnZiSTbWStR5GpYfPkE22Cf
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1677 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"1830bc7fdafffbaa41836ae029f1c3d5","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T11:29:52.039Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2308,"investigation_id":"21466a18-b366-4bdf-a8f3-c17504df0fd2","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":26,"page_slug":"texitcoin-minetxc-blockchain-mint","prev_score":26,"reason":"Of 14 claim findings, 1 was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer, and 3 of the remaining 13 (about 23%) could not be verified: the Ochoa quote wording (claim_findings[1]) and the post-hearing brief and December 22 recommendation dates (claim_findings[9], [10]), which the cited Texas Public Radio article does not contain. None were disputed, and the core regulatory facts (order number, date, respondents, hearing date, judge) are confirmed by Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. Several partially supported items need tightening: the extradition sentence is uncited and imprecise for Singapore, the $0.20 token price is not clearly consistent with the source, and the page omits that the judge denied the early-dismissal motion. Omissions are all minor and the subject status does not contradict the page. The two high-priority coverage gaps (the scanned order and the court schedule) and the reviewer's moderate confidence keep the penalty at the low end of the band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":13,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}