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 · Bitcoin Depot
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 8 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443561969
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:40:21.244Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BivpCsdNpxQA8MEGr1mVQCiLd2yMDfZS1R23ts4L6EPW
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1722 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"91e8872bb00e119e17b46fddee84154a","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:40:21.049Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2,"investigation_id":"87fee4fc-b081-4a85-ad3e-38fe6be61b29","new_score":0,"page_slug":"bitcoin-depot","prev_score":8,"reason":"The page's core narrative -- a leading crypto-ATM operator facing coordinated state enforcement over fraud facilitation, followed by leadership turnover and bankruptcy -- is well supported by primary regulatory sources (AG complaints, DFI/DOB orders) and independent reporting, with the large majority of granular figures (transaction counts, dollar amounts, dates) confirmed. Correction is needed in three areas: the summary's claim that the Massachusetts and Iowa lawsuits allege 'hundreds of millions' in fraud overstates those two suits, which together allege roughly $30 million (the larger figure appears to come from unrelated nationwide FBI data); the stated 15-30% fee range understates the 15-50% range actually alleged in the cited Massachusetts complaint; and the timeline's assertion that the company 'enters a period without a permanent CEO' after Scott Buchanan's March 2026 resignation is incorrect, since Alex Holmes was named CEO and Chairman effective the same date -- a fact the review separately flags as a high-priority coverage gap. A data-breach timeline entry is also dated a year off from the confirmed 2024 date. None of these issues undermine the substantiated pattern of regulatory findings, but they require correction.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}