Moverssellhalfandholdthreedaysonacoinwithgoodnarrative.eth↓409MegaETH↓330jeff.hl↓2490xd4b4...3C5f↓211Sk0rp.eth↑165Tradebuz↑25.2%Ansem 🐂🀄️↑1.0%Hyperliquid↑2.0%fomo↓12.6%VouchesSk0rp.eth9.0K WHUF → chosta.ethAndrewD286 WHUF → 一川drive 🔴AndrewD200 WHUF → CragHack | GoHbobby_x77 WHUF → AdamReviewsvitalik.ethpositive · 100 upvotesalonnegative · 92 upvotesCrypto Colaneutral · 72 upvotesWorldneutral · 71 upvotes
Profile· Exemplary@serpinxbtOn Ethos
Serpin Taxt

Serpin Taxt

2,005 reviews, 92% of them positive; 140.9K WHUF vouched for them by 109 people.92% positive · 2,005 reviews· 140.9K WHUF vouched· Influence factor 327, above 63% of accounts

The record

From 689 activities · Mar 2026

Known as the founder and CEO of Ethos Network, a reputation layer for Web3 focused on human verification, Sybil detection, and on-chain trust, with a background in product, security, and identity verification and a former managing partner at 0x5f Capital. Reviewers consistently describe a hands-on, community-engaged builder who hosts regular spaces, vibe coding streams, and Vibeathon events, and who answers feedback directly. Some note a strict, sometimes controversial stance on slashes and AI-generated content, but the overall picture is of a driven founder whose focus is credibility and transparency.

Vouched · 109 people · 140.9K WHUF at stakeAll vouches ›and 106 more
“Serpin Dictatorship !!!!! 100% centralized platform ?”bro why you ban me ? this is decentralized platform . there is limit of 5 validation per hour . so whats wrong ? i hope you consider this . here is not dictatorship . so i hope you lift the ban : its childhish behaviour . I’m genuinely surprised and a bit disappointed by the recent ban on my account. I believe there’s been a misunderstanding, and I want to respectfully express my thoughts while hoping that the moderation team or administrators take a moment to reconsider the decision. This platform, as I understand it, was built on the principles of decentralization, fairness, and community empowerment—not centralized control or unilateral decisions that resemble censorship or authoritarianism. Let me start by saying that I hold this platform in high regard. It’s a space that encourages open participation, creativity, collaboration, and decentralized validation, which makes it unique and valuable in the growing Web3 ecosystem. I’ve spent time understanding the rules, contributing thoughtfully, and engaging within the limits. So, when I was banned for something I don’t fully understand—especially when I was operating within the stated validation limits—I felt not just disappointed, but confused. To be clear: the platform specifies a limit of 5 validations per hour. I remained within that threshold. I made sure not to abuse the system or spam, and I took care to make my interactions meaningful and respectful. So, if I followed the guidelines, what exactly did I do wrong? If there are unspoken rules or additional restrictions, they should be made transparent. Users shouldn’t be penalized for actions that technically adhere to the publicly posted terms. That creates frustration and damages the trust users place in the system. What’s more troubling is the lack of warning or a chance to explain myself. A decentralized platform should operate with transparency and fairness. Sudden bans without prior communication, evidence, or an appeal mechanism feel out of step with that vision. They mirror the kind of centralized, top-down control many of us left behind when we embraced decentralized communities. This isn't about just my account—it's about the precedent being set. If a platform positions itself as decentralized, it must also be accountable to its users. It should lead with clarity, fairness, and openness, not opaque decisions and silence. We all want to see this platform succeed, and we all want to feel respected and safe here. That includes being able to raise concerns without fear of being silenced or banned arbitrarily. Calling this kind of ban childish isn’t meant to offend—rather, it’s to point out how these actions undermine the maturity and credibility of a platform striving to lead in a new internet era. Instead of building community and dialogue, actions like these alienate active, well-meaning contributors. That’s not the future we envision with decentralization, and I don’t think that’s the future this platform wants either. So I ask you, respectfully and directly: Why was I banned? What rule did I break? Can we talk about this like people who care about making something great together? If there’s something I did wrong, I’m open to feedback—I genuinely want to improve. But I also ask you to consider the importance of communication, due process, and the core values this platform was built on. Please lift the ban and give this another look. I’ve always tried to be a positive, constructive member of the community, and I still believe in what this platform stands for. Let's act in the spirit of collaboration and progress, not arbitrary enforcement. I hope you’ll reconsider and allow me to contribute again. Thank you for your time—and I truly hope we can move forward with mutual respect and understanding.🌊PaTrOn . · 806· 1y ago · negative0
‹ Back1,884 of 2,005 · most upvoted firstMore ›