MoversSomeguy↓416Afi↓374Grethos↓351aadvark↓277Majdi↓263TradeSk0rp.eth↑48.8%Ethos↓1.7%vitalik.eth↑1.0%jeff.hl↑1.0%VouchesTucosalamanca943 WHUF → EthosDpuck (bob)50 WHUF → freshout.ape 🍄🦍MMatt25 WHUF → Rahulxero.hlAnton Boiarchuk10 WHUF → Sk0rp.ethReviewsTbeagle ⨀positive · 24 upvotesBboatpositive · 10 upvotesRahulxero.hlpositive · 8 upvotesSk0rp.ethpositive · 5 upvotes
Profile· Known@0xKharonOn Ethos
ZET

ZET

196 reviews, 96% of them positive; 247 WHUF vouched for them by 8 people.96% positive · 196 reviews· 247 WHUF vouched· Influence factor 15, above 3% of accounts

The record

From 90 activities · Apr 2026

A crypto veteran and rigorous investigator known for thorough sybil detection, human verification work, and evidence-backed reviews on Ethos. Respected for digging into patterns, calling out bad actors with receipts rather than speculation, and maintaining ethical principles across Web3—though some dispute the evidentiary basis of certain accusations. Active mentor and community builder who mentors others on research methodology, writes detailed project analysis, and consistently contributes to ecosystem integrity.

“Ideas for Improving Slash-Round Consensus”Think about making the Credibility Score adjustment in slash-rounds more dynamic. We already have a model that supports "Successful slash", "Inconclusive", and "Defended" outcomes. However, the actual Credibility Score change remains static even when 61% vote to Slash and 39% vote to Defend. Perhaps in such a case, a conditional slash of, say, 200 points should be reduced by 39% (i.e. only 122 points would be deducted instead of the full 200)? The same applies if the slasher loses. They wouldn't lose 200 points, but, say, 122. It seems to me this is more precise, as it somewhat accounts for the mob effect. Of course, this model should be made more complex. Perhaps introduce some kind of threshold. For example, if the difference is only 10%, it doesn't count. Or if there aren't enough voters. By the way, given the situation with Drift, we should think about the credibility of the consensus when there are few participants in a slash-round. For instance, if there are only 5 or 10 people in a slash-round, can the result really be considered valid? It may also be that the direct actors of the slash-round (the "slasher" and the "defender") should not be allowed to vote for an outcome that benefits themselves. And one more point: What about strengthening the role of validators in the protocol? What if they started "validating" slash-rounds? Perhaps validators should receive a separate notification that a new slash-round has been created in Ethos, and criteria should be established by which a round could be considered invalid. For example, if at least 3/5 of the validators did not participate in the vote. These are just rough thoughts and a draft. I left a positive review so as not to overshadow the impact of the previous positive review.on Ethos · 2332· 7mo ago222
‹ Back168 of 492 · most upvoted firstMore ›