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 · Bit.com
- Sequence
- #6
- Score
- 62 → 62 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 450579989
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-26T05:26:14.369Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HdqrEa6kwSUDFhQUawJCkEW2Rci5n77PuQb3QMFGVTrU
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1899 chars)
{"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"2c85125a79a7ed8a1913cdf80439d5d4","decided_at":"2026-09-26T05:26:14.216Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.0909,"findings_hash":"J3azEwyDGtXpCDewR8G3AfNd6JogtYxNB9gXskBgLw58","investigation_id":"cc3fbcec-6e6a-4760-96d9-3cb179d61864","mode":"findings_only","new_score":62,"page_content_hash":"1b01af38ee62472de8898c531b09b0b87ae95569455fc3729afab2e32910bb99","page_slug":"bit-com","prev_score":62,"reason":"The large majority of factual claims on this page hold up well against primary and independent sources: the corporate history, funding rounds, exchange launch and market-position figures, fee schedules, the shutdown timeline, the Matrixport ETF-report controversy, the 2023 layoffs, and the current BIT licensing footprint were all independently confirmed, several via direct fetch of the cited sources. The page's most significant defect is an omission rather than an error: it does not mention the 2022-2023 Roger Ver v. Smart Vega Holding Limited (Bit.com) Seychelles lawsuit, in which Ver alleges the exchange wrongfully withheld $8 million of his funds. This directly undercuts the summary's claim that 'no fraud allegations ... have been identified against the exchange itself' and the Security section's claim of 'no ... theft of user funds,' both of which should be qualified. A handful of other claims (exact ETF-crash liquidation/price figures, the FXEmpire review date) show minor, non-material numeric drift against the range of contemporaneous reporting. No evidence was found contradicting the page's central narrative that Bit.com's 2025-2026 closure was an orderly restructuring rather than a fraud-driven collapse, and no accepted community submissions existed to independently spot-check.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}