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
- #3
- Score
- 10 → 2 (-8)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443511077
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T03:23:03.258Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- Gv7KxLLsYQ2bARAhJcAYaCoNUpQbgeMpUJSfXjHGrA58
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1947 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:23:02.742Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"67545c13-d1b5-42ab-8926-c1718187a685","new_score":2,"page_slug":"doj-225m-pig-butchering-civil-forfeiture-u-s-v-approx-225-364-961-in-usdt","prev_score":10,"reason":"The review confirms the page's core factual spine — the case caption, docket number 1:25-cv-01907, the $225,364,961 figure, and the June 18, 2025 filing date — against primary court-record sources, and 41 of 49 claims checked out as confirmed (claim_findings[0], claim_findings[6]). The page also correctly and consistently separates the civil forfeiture action (no named individual defendants) from the one person actually criminally convicted in a related case, Shan Hanes (claim_findings[10], claim_findings[15]). However, two claims are disputed, and the more consequential one is a self-contradiction: the page states funds moved through roughly 100 intermediary wallets, but the very TRM Labs report it cites for that sentence says 35 wallets fed the seven USDT groups (claim_findings[17]). A second disputed claim gives June 1, 2023 as the date Tether first froze the funds, while independent reporting places the first disclosed freeze around November 2023 (claim_findings[40]). A citation was also misattributed — a detail about 93 deposit addresses and an entity name was credited to Fortune, but that article does not contain it, though the underlying fact holds up elsewhere (claim_findings[12]). None of this undermines the page's central allegations, but the self-contradicting citation on a quantitative claim in a section marked critical severity, combined with a high-priority coverage gap around unconfirmed victim-remission status (coverage_gaps[1]), is enough to warrant a correction pass rather than a clean pass.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}