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 · Michele Spagnuolo
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 12 → 12 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443510498
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T02:54:01.219Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 3zCQqzmQ5G4h6rZ8uppw4jjAy6eMeXieL1FM5UWBBiac
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1445 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T02:54:00.751Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"e4c2d829-0e45-45ec-9756-c9021d22d6af","new_score":12,"page_slug":"michele-spagnuolo","prev_score":12,"reason":"Of 28 factual claims checked against the page's cited sources, 26 were fully confirmed and none were disputed. The only two exceptions (claim_findings[0] and claim_findings[5]) were rated 'partially_supported' for minor framing issues -- the page's summary slightly overstates that 'AlphaRaccoon' was his general online handle rather than a betting-specific alias, and it infers Zurich as his city of residence when sources confirm Swiss residence and Zurich workplace but not residence city specifically. Neither issue touches the core allegations, the charges, the amounts, or the quoted statements, all of which were independently corroborated via primary sources including a CFTC press release and DOJ SDNY material. The reviewer also specifically checked for identity-conflation risk given this is a named individual facing criminal charges, and found none. Coverage gaps identified (jurisdiction context, defense response, on-chain verification, Van Dyke case update, docket number) are all medium or low priority and represent opportunities for expansion, not grounds for penalty.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}