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
- 0 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443523592
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-27T04:01:29.512Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EVZwcCQr8nYuzhVDM1x6GtG8L36uMSBjWmQ38Bue4ajw
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2165 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T04:01:29.233Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"bf4a4ec1-6ca2-4bcc-840e-298334b765f5","new_score":0,"page_slug":"cambodia-chatgpt-pig-butchering-crypto-scam-network-openai-shutdown-july-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 41 claims checked, 25 were confirmed and only 7 disputed plus 3 unverifiable, for a disputed rate of 24.4% -- inside the 10-30% band. The page's central claim holds up: OpenAI's July 31, 2026 ban of a ChatGPT account network linked to Poipet, Cambodia is well-corroborated by OpenAI's own disclosure and independent outlets, and the associated sanctions, dollar figures, and trafficking details tied to named individuals (Kok An, Ly Yong Phat) check out against Treasury's primary sources (claim_findings[12], [14], [15], [16], [18], [31]). The disputes are sourcing-precision problems rather than fabrications: a journalist's editorial line is misattributed to OpenAI in one section while correctly attributed to the journalist elsewhere on the same page (claim_findings[3], contrast with [30]); a Tether/pig-butchering statistic is credited to Elliptic when the page's own source names a different academic paper (claim_findings[20]); a 46%-vs-18% persuasion statistic is presented as this network's efficacy when it comes from an unrelated generic study (claim_findings[29]); and four timeline dates diverge from primary sources (claim_findings[36], [37], [38] and related partially_supported date entries). The reviewer also flagged a high-priority coverage gap: large enforcement figures from separate cases (Prince Group/Chen Zhi, a Burma-based compound) sit next to the Kok An/Poipet narrative without clear disambiguation, risking reader conflation of distinct operations even though each figure is individually accurate. That high-priority gap, combined with the page sitting at the upper end of the minor-issues band and containing a self-contradiction about attribution, warrants a correction pass rather than a pass-through approval.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}