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.

What people say

Received · 196 Given · 492

Vouched · 8 people · 247 WHUF at stakeAll vouches ›

1730Anton Boiarchuk40d ago 100 WHUF“Truly a unique perspective and approach. An example of how to approach projects. and trade in general. Respect”

1532jmike.var39d ago 80 WHUF“sober view”

1514Block Reporter40d ago 50 WHUF“The Guardian of Ethos & Web3”

and 5 more

“assumption slasher”his some slash is built on assumptions, not evidence. in my slash , entire case relies on indirect associations, normal P2P transactions between friends, and speculation instead of proving account ownership or coordinated Sybil behaviour. Key issues: * Treating a single USDT transfer as proof of common ownership. * Assuming wallet interactions automatically mean the same person controls both accounts. * Misrepresenting normal conversations and transactions as "evidence." * Ignoring alternative explanations even when supporting proof is available. * Failing to provide any direct proof that I control the alleged accounts or participated in coordinated Sybil activity. I have already provided supporting evidence, including screen recordings of Telegram conversations, transaction context, and I'm willing to share complete chat exports privately with moderators if further verification is needed. A serious slash should be based on verifiable facts not assumptions, clustering theories, or guilt by association. This review is not about disagreeing with the outcome. It's about highlighting a pattern of making strong accusations without meeting the burden of proof expected for reputation-based systems. Reputation systems only work when evidence comes before conclusions.

zankar.eth · 1329· 3mo ago · negative0

“Sees Ethos Abuse Everywhere”You seem so determined to find people "abusing Ethos" that you've started treating every positive review as suspicious by default. That's not analysis - that's bias! Before accusing people of farming points, maybe spend some time actually looking at their profile and activity. You might find that reality is a bit more nuanced than the narrative you've already decided on.

Olla · 1282· 4mo ago · negative0

“He does not verify facts”I want to address something that happened recently because I believe people should be careful when dealing with certain situations online. I contacted Zet for a human verification process, expecting fairness and proper communication. During the process, he noticed what he considered “suspicious,” but instead of reaching out to me for clarification or allowing me to explain anything, he immediately jumped to conclusions and gave me a negative review. What disappointed me most is not even the review itself, but the lack of proper verification before making a judgment. If someone is truly trying to verify a person or situation, the first step should be communication. Ask questions. Hear the person out. Confirm facts. That’s the whole point of verification. Everybody understands the importance of caution online, but there’s also a responsibility to be fair and objective. Giving someone a bad reputation without even checking with them directly can affect people unfairly and create false impressions. A simple conversation could have cleared up whatever concerns existed, but instead assumptions were made first. That kind of approach can easily lead to misunderstandings and unfair treatment of innocent people. I’m sharing this so others stay aware and understand the importance of dealing with people who actually verify before judging. Fairness and communication matter, especially when someone’s reputation is involved.

Kenny · 1304· 5mo ago · negative0

“Baseless sybil accusations”Leaves negative reviews accusing people of sybil activity without providing a single piece of on-chain evidence. "Study the connections yourself" is not proof it's an accusation dressed up as an investigation. On a platform where reputation has real consequences, this kind of careless finger-pointing is irresponsible. If you're going to damage someone's credibility score, bring actual data.

Maikl Helburg · 1183· 5mo ago · negative0

‹ Back196 of 196 · most upvoted first