MoversSomeguy↓416Afi↓374Grethos↓351aadvark↓292Majdi↓264Tradeclioagent.eth↑63.1%jesse.base.eth↑30.2%Sk0rp.eth↑15.3%BlindSquirrel↑7.8%VouchesCorey0001 📉 📈10 WHUF → ChescoSamZ5 WHUF → SafZ🫎 Scaply .ink .sand3 WHUF → AndrewDAndrewD2 WHUF → 🫎 Scaply .ink .sandReviewsShuyao Kongnegative · 67 upvotes₿IRBnegative · 48 upvotes一川drive 🔴positive · 29 upvotes🫎 Scaply .ink .sandpositive · 22 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.

What people say

Received · 748Given · 0
“scam”Arzu (Ø,G) · 1160· 9mo ago · negative0
“Betrayed by humans”Imagine trust them from day one, support them, have good conversation with the team and also the community, suddenly everything changed, no announcement, no one expected to be like that, everybody bullish in this project, untill they violating tokenomics that made by themselves, ofc after that community feels like they betrayed the community by violating tokenomic.Mao · 1190· 9mo ago · negative0
“Emerging Proof-of-Humanity and Decentralized Identity Project”Humanity Protocol is working on an interesting approach to on-chain identity verification using palm biometrics and zero-knowledge proofs to establish real human uniqueness without compromising privacy. The concept has potential for reducing sybil attacks in airdrops, governance, and social protocols, but the project is still very early-stage with limited mainnet activity and adoption so far. Community feedback is mixed, with only a small percentage of vouches being strongly positive and quite a few neutral or cautious takes. Team communication exists but could be more frequent and detailed on progress. Worth keeping an eye on for future developments in the human-verification space, but I'd approach with moderate caution and wait for more real-world usage and stronger consensus before fully trusting large commitments. DYOR heavily here.Vahid · 1160· 9mo ago0
“Building Trust Through On-Chain Transparency”“A promising protocol with a clear vision for building trust and transparency. Simple interface, on-chain reviews add credibility, and the concept has strong potential for future growth.”zkPRP 🐸 · 1285· 9mo ago0
“Needs stronger transparency and consistency”While the idea behind this project is promising, the current execution still feels incomplete. Communication is limited, updates lack clarity, and long-term direction is not clearly defined yet. Trust can only be built with consistent delivery and transparency, which still needs improvement at this stage.SOLVIA · 1131· 9mo ago · negative0
“One big disappointment”This is exactly the kind of project that shows what a project shouldn't be and there's nothing more to say.Profit1888 · 1269· 9mo ago · negative0
“Зламана довіра й повна відсутність прозорості”​Як на проєкт із таким гучним меседжем про «гуманність», Humanity Protocol у мене викликає дуже негативне враження: майже повністю негативні відгуки, статус Untrusted та низький скоринговий профіль виглядають як червоні прапорці, а не просто «тимчасові труднощі». Історії про маніпулятивну аірдроп‑кампанію, розмиті обіцянки, збір персональних даних без чіткого результату, дискримінацію реальних сапортерів і повний нуль взаємності тільки підсилюють відчуття, що тут більше про фарм метрик, ніж про реальну цінність для комʼюніті. Особисто для себе я зробив висновок, що це кейс, де довіра вже остаточно зламана, і витрачати час чи дані на такий проєкт не бачу жодного сенсу.Vlad ❤️ BASE 👁️ · 1237· 9mo ago · negative0
“I didn't engage much with the project as it requires KYC”Shady · 1234· 9mo ago · negative0
“Humanity Protocol”Humanity Protocol promises a global identity solution resistant to AI attacks through palm vein scanning, yet to a skeptical critic, this feels like a dystopia wrapped in a narrative of inclusion questioning whether we are building digital sovereignty or simply handing over our most intimate biometric data to a permanent, undeletable on chain database.Jowo | · 1205· 9mo ago · neutral0
“We are yet to see real use case”Good promises, bit we still wait on RWA use case and adoption.noblepeter2000.base.eth | 💢 | (Ø,G) | · 1336· 9mo ago · neutral0
“very bad project”Humanity Protocol is a very bad and scam project! They don't value the community and the people who have made the project big, the allocation is bad and seems not transparent and only the people who are liked by the Devs are valued. a developer should not have personal feelings towards peopleflow_nick | Sweep 🦈 · 1250· 9mo ago · negative0
“Untusted Scam”this one is overwhelmingly negative on Ethos, with a rock-bottom "Untrusted" score of 98 (deep in the red zone), 670+ received reviews almost entirely negative (99%+ slashed/downgraded sentiment), zero given reviews from the profile, and heavy slashing activity. The community feedback is brutal and consistent: accusations of being a scam, rug pull, PUA harvesting, betrayal of trust, false promises (e.g., massive yapper rewards promised then slashed to tiny amounts like 60k instead of millions), bad founder history (Terence Kwok accused of lying/deceiving), token dumps, poor transparency, and overall "biggest scam in Web3" vibes from many users. High slashing volume (e.g., 99.8-99.9% negative impact) and comments like "start of scams in Web3," "betrayed community trust," "questionable credibility," and "no level of transparency" paint a picture of widespread disappointment and distrust. The profile shows no mutual vouchers, emerging projects listing but no positive traction, and activity dominated by negative reviews over months. Recent X chatter (from searches) also shows mixed-to-negative takes, with some users calling it out as a rug or scam despite occasional positive institutional integrations (like Fireblocks), and token price volatility post-launch with founder admitting high bot percentages undermining the "proof of humanity" core mission. In short, this is not a positive review candidate Ethos has already slammed it hard as untrustworthy. If you're considering interacting, vouching, or reviewing positively, the data screams caution (or outright avoidance). It's a classic case of hype → launch → massive community backlash → slashed credibility. Steer clear unless new evidence flips the narrative dramatically.otherbluee | π² 🫎 · 1273· 9mo ago · negative0
‹ Back732 of 748 · most upvoted firstMore ›