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_approve · IRS Fake Digital Asset Compliance Portal Scam (2026)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443510900
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T03:16:42.329Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4L1HGqFvbrFc11H1cgtS6nzDqs38NsH2wkbvVgtXZpz1
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1333 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:16:41.783Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"17a50b72-7abf-4a8f-8d89-8ac92e3fe502","new_score":0,"page_slug":"irs-fake-digital-asset-compliance-portal-scam-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"The fact-check found the page's claims well supported: 38 of 46 checked claims were fully confirmed and none were disputed, putting the disputed rate at 6.5%, well within the approval range. The remaining 5 claims were only 'partially supported' due to minor sourcing nuances (for example, a detail attributed to three organizations when it was really traced to one, and a phrase attributed to Help Net Security that a direct fetch of that article didn't turn up, though the underlying fact is corroborated elsewhere), not because any source contradicted them. Three other claims are unverifiable negative statements (no arrests reported, no aggregate loss total published, no comparable prior campaign documented) that no source disputes. No citations were found to be dead or outdated, and the reviewer flagged no high-priority coverage gaps, only optional follow-up areas like tracking domain takedown status or eventual victim-loss figures.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}