MoversSomeguy↓416Afi↓374Grethos↓351aadvark↓288Majdi↓263TradeDonald J. Trump↓13.3%Bold↑1.7%Itsakm8↑2.6%Serpin Taxt↑1.0%VouchesAnton Boiarchuk10 WHUF → Sk0rp.ethCole West8 WHUF → zypherxbtCristian P.5 WHUF → chosta.ethstellarobject5 WHUF → 0xGeeGeeReviewsAnton Boiarchukpositive · 67 upvotesPendlepositive · 66 upvotesShuyao Kongnegative · 46 upvotesalcides.eth ⭕✨positive · 41 upvotes
Profile· Untrusted@HumanityprotOn Ethos
Humanity

Humanity

748 reviews, 17% of them positive.17% positive · 748 reviews· Influence factor 59, above 11% of accounts

The record

From 215 activities · Mar 2026

Humanity Protocol promised palm-scan verification and fair airdrops to reduce scams and fake identities in Web3, but systematically betrayed its community. The project collected extensive personal data and KYC information, then distributed rewards unfairly—favoring insiders, paid influencers, and bots while genuine contributors received minimal payouts ($29–$400) or were marked ineligible without explanation. After raising $50 million, the team allegedly misused funds, with most allocations going to founder Terence Kwok's wallet. A claimed North Korean hacker attack that dumped the token is widely viewed as a cover story. The airdrop was plagued by technical failures, site crashes, and sudden eligibility rule changes. Community members report data exploitation, ghosting, and broken promises around transparency and fairness—the very issues the project claimed to solve.

“Good tech, bad Exection”Humanity Protocol positions itself as a blockchain-based "trust layer" for the internet, using palm biometrics and zero-knowledge proofs to verify real humans and combat bots, deep fakes, and AI fraud. The project promises privacy-first identity verification and has gained attention for experiments highlighting issues like dating app catfishing .However, the community has expressed significant disappointment, particularly around its token ($H) distribution and airdrop process. Many early participants who completed palm scans, built referrals, and engaged for months reported receiving little to no tokens, despite apparent eligibility. Complaints include: Unclear Sybil (multi-account farming) detection that penalized legitimate users, sometimes due to referrals linked to flagged accounts without prior warnings. Accusations of opacity in allocation criteria, with some users claiming insiders or market makers (e.g., Jump Trading) benefited disproportionately while community contributors got shortchanged. Price dumps and heavy selling pressure post-launch, leading to sharp losses for holders who saw repeated patterns of large transfers to exchanges interpreted as controlled distribution or "rug-like" behavior. While the core tech addresses real problems (e.g., AI-generated fraud), the execution of community rewards has left many feeling exploited-time and biometric data invested for minimal or zero return. Vocal critics label it a disappointment or worse, with some calling for reports on the account due to perceived bait-and-switch tactics3L 🪖 · 1272· 8mo ago · negative5
‹ Back480 of 748 · most upvoted firstMore ›