MoversSomeguy↓416Afi↓374Grethos↓351aadvark↓288Majdi↓264Tradejesse.base.eth↑26.9%clioagent.eth↑78.1%Sk0rp.eth↑15.3%BlindSquirrel↑7.8%VouchesCole West8 WHUF → zypherxbtCristian P.5 WHUF → chosta.ethSamZ5 WHUF → SafZ🫎 Scaply .ink .sand3 WHUF → AndrewDReviewsPendlepositive · 93 upvotesAnton Boiarchukpositive · 67 upvotesWildcallnegative · 58 upvotesShuyao Kongnegative · 57 upvotes
Profile· Known@0xKharonOn Ethos
ZET

ZET

197 reviews, 96% of them positive; 247 WHUF vouched for them by 8 people.96% positive · 197 reviews· 247 WHUF vouched· Influence factor 15, above 3% of accounts

The record

From 91 activities · Apr 2026

ZET is a crypto veteran and active Ethos contributor known for rigorous sybil investigations, thorough human verification, and evidence-backed reviews that expose bad actors and XP farmers. Reviewers consistently praise their detailed research, mentorship, and commitment to ecosystem integrity—though some critics argue certain slashes rely on assumptions rather than on-chain proof. A respected community leader who runs the "From Zero" trading community and shares sharp market analysis across X and Telegram, valued for honest takes on projects, tokenomics, and privacy coins like Monero and Zcash.

“Caught using an ALT account.”This user was previously caught having an ALT account, from which they wrote a [positive review](https://app.ethos.network/activity/review/620221/feast) to their presumed main account on Ethos ( [Feast](https://app.ethos.network/profile/0x1289c7527D1a0Be9412Ea620DD78cb1CA8EcbD53) ). The reasons I concluded that the ALT account is linked to them are based on on-chain connections and social factors, such as the publication of an [EVM address in X giveaways](https://ghostarchive.org/archive/s77hd). Technically, this means the user abused the system to try to artificially boost their own credibility score. However, I considered their actions minor and not particularly harmful, aside from the mere fact of the abuse. I decided to write a [neutral review](https://app.ethos.network/activity/review/701145/if-you-have-any-other-alt-accounts-mark-them-yourself) on their profile, suggesting they disclose any other ALT accounts they may have, and to leave a note on their profile indicating the abuse. The neutral review contains a hyperlink to the [negative review](https://app.ethos.network/activity/review/701131/alt-account) directed at the ALT account, which includes evidence regarding the publication of the EVM address on X. It uses a tweet archiving service, similar to the Wayback Machine. After some time, [Feast commented on my review](https://app.ethos.network/activity/review/701131?replyId=69033), stating they have no accounts on Ethos and that my claim lacks substantial grounds that would be based on thorough research. HOWEVER, the publication of the EVM address [0xc478Fe8BC80C224B1146C27e65795b66988eDEc1](https://app.ethos.network/profile/0x5A8465A6f909e80443C4C0f301f519Ecd910B3fe) has now been deleted from Feast’s X account. NEVERTHELESS, it remains in the [archived search version](https://ghostarchive.org/archive/s77hd). For me, this means one thing: the person abused the system, effectively erased traces of the abuse, misled others with their comment, and lied to whitewash themselves. Such actions in themselves should somehow be reflected in the credibility score of the user Feast.on 🌱 feast 🚢 · 1249· 6mo ago · negative10
‹ Back324 of 494 · most upvoted firstMore ›