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
- 22 → 22 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443562328
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-02T00:42:26.067Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 6Znc53dVw2wnB1DLD1YMHFzXDKLrRjtYJSnu2yve8psr
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1334 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"6bf7ba335a48b58ba4d599e85ec1961b","decided_at":"2026-09-02T00:42:25.979Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"49c28658-23e6-4c60-b7c9-b5ce991d0c1c","new_score":22,"page_slug":"coinhub-bitcoin-atm-fraud-facilitation-network","prev_score":22,"reason":"The large majority of atomic claims on this page are directly and precisely confirmed against primary regulatory filings (DFPI, Connecticut DOB, Senate Judiciary, mass.gov), a well-sourced Boston Globe investigation, and the ICIJ 'Coin Laundry' series. No claims were found to be disputed or unverifiable, and no cited links were dead. Weaknesses are minor: a one-day date error on the DFPI action, an understated (stale) Bitcoin Depot machine count, an overstated causal link between Bitcoin Depot's revenue decline and identity-verification measures specifically, and a description of Vermont's kiosk policy that has since been superseded by a permanent ban. The page's central framing -- that Coinhub faces only consumer-protection findings and not fraud charges -- was independently checked and holds against a Massachusetts AG lawsuit that targets Bitcoin Depot, not Coinhub.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}