Someguy
Afi
Grethos
aadvark
Majdi
jesse.base.eth
Sk0rp.eth
BlindSquirrel
Corey0001 📉 📈
Cristian P.
SamZ
🫎 Scaply .ink .sand
Wildcall
Shuyao Kong
sibzb
₿IRBProfile· Exemplary@serpinxbtOn Ethos
Serpin Taxt
2,005 reviews, 92% of them positive; 152.4K WHUF vouched for them by 114 people.92% positive · 2,005 reviews· 152.4K WHUF vouched· Influence factor 331, above 63% of accountsThe record
From 721 activities · Mar 2026Serpin is the founder and CEO of Ethos Network, a reputation and accountability platform built on-chain to combat sybils, scammers, and bad actors in crypto. A 12-year product leader with experience at Atlassian, HouseCallPro, and as an early hire at Message.io (YC W16), he brings deep expertise in product, security, identity verification, and fraud prevention. Known for hands-on community engagement, transparent communication, and uncompromising commitment to building trust through economic incentives and measurable reputation—he actively vouches for credible users, slashes bad actors with evidence, and iterates on Ethos mechanics based on real user behavior. Consistently praised for his work ethic, accessibility despite being CEO, and vision of making crypto more human-centered and trustworthy.
What people say
Received · 2KGiven · 1K“25 AI detected reviews”You wrote 25 reviews that Eleos Agent identified as AI spam, and I reviewed them and agree.
on Creative Association 'Skatert' | (✧ᴗ✧) · 1287· 9mo ago · negative70
on Creative Association 'Skatert' | (✧ᴗ✧) · 1287· 9mo ago · negative70“Great dude who I've bumped shoulders with a few times”We share multiple groups and communities, have always known him to be an upstanding citizen of more private communities - and he's always around to provide some feedback or ask questions about Ethos, which I value immensely :)
on Delph · 1543· 11mo ago70
on Delph · 1543· 11mo ago70“incredible podcast host”Toady invited me to join his podcast and he was an OUTSTANDING host. I wasn't familiar with his game much beforehand, but he was super nice, welcoming, asked amazing questions.. he's been nothing short of awesome to work with. And made some killer thumbnails + promos for the pod. Excited to keep working with him in the future
on Toady Hawk · 1468· 1y ago70
on Toady Hawk · 1468· 1y ago70“Wasted my capital (Copy over from Jackson, CEO's review)”I got lured into the Thunder round and wrote a $25k check seeing how a. popular terminals were b. much social consensus was behind thunder winning Thunder then subsequently got hacked, and was never the same. They lost all market share as the terminal wars heated up That's fine - It's a startup, you expect them to fail. but this was both a generational fumble (had market share before) PLUS has left investors in the dark multiple times with NO updates. They rebranded thunder to Azura, and have been teasing stuff like V2, V2, V2 for ages. They seem to not know how to build or are off spending investor $$ some other way Literally everyone I know in that round (and there are some GIGA names) dms each other about how much of a joke it was that we gave money to Jackson. He had some of the best funding in the space and just never delivered. Oh, but he did give us an update that he got into the Thiel Fellowship last year! Failure is acceptable. Jackson's approach to his product, investors, etc. was shameful.
on Azura · 1245· 9mo ago · negative55
on Azura · 1245· 9mo ago · negative55“Participant in "ethos mutuall review" telegram group (not a typo)”Random people in this group including this person have been soliciting and exchanging reviews without knowing each other.
on nofad · 1308· 11mo ago · negative55
on nofad · 1308· 11mo ago · negative55“Poor personal experience with Digits and his company NAV”Digits was on Friendtech super early, and we connected there. Originally when I started Ethos, we talked about his background in marketing and how he might be able to help us. He claimed to be a top marketer, knew how to drive attention, knew how to get people interested in a product. He asked for an insane rate and % of equity. I pressed him a bit on outcomes he could drive towards, how he measured success, and some of his past wins. He sort of scoffed at it and said, no worries - you don't need my services - you will see what I do with NAV finance In the middle of this I had invested $$ into his Nav Finance company (https://x.com/navfinance_) - they were berachain aligned and promoted that they knew how to do some sort of advanced trading for a hedge fund. The token did launch, and I did receive it, but as an investor I have never received any sort of investor update or status update on how things were going. Since then I've seen him bullposting crazy trades that he's made, none of which have trickled into NAV finance. His past as a berachain bull is behind him now, and he barely talks about either thing. He never marketed the project well, and I'm very glad we didn't hire him for marketing because of that.
on Digits Capital · 1376· 1y ago · negative55
on Digits Capital · 1376· 1y ago · negative55“EIP-12: Credibility-Influence Delta”## Abstract This proposal introduces the **Credibility–Influence Delta (CID)**, a balancing mechanism within the Ethos credibility system that compares a user’s **Credibility Score bracket** with their **Influence Factor percentile**. The system measures alignment between reputation and reach, penalizing users whose influence level is disproportionately low relative to their score bracket. The goal is to ensure that top-tier credibility scores represent individuals who are both reputable *and* influential — those who have earned trust locally and carry meaningful weight globally. By applying a penalty for significant misalignment, the CID discourages artificial score inflation, strengthens the upper tiers of credibility, and makes spoofing harder without authentic social presence or network effect. --- ## Specification ### Overview Ethos classifies users into discrete **Credibility Score brackets** and **Influence Factor percentiles**. The **Credibility–Influence Delta** measures the *difference* between these two tiers. #### Credibility Score Brackets | **Score Range** | **Bracket Label** | |------------------|-------------------| | 2200+ | Distinguished | | 2000–2199 | Exemplary | | 1800–1999 | Reputable | | 1600–1799 | Established | | 1400–1599 | Known | #### Influence Factor Percentiles | **Percentile Range** | **Band Label** | |------------------------|----------------| | Top 10% | Elite Influence | | Top 25% | High Influence | | Top 50% | Moderate Influence | | Bottom 50% | Low Influence | | Bottom 25% | Minimal Influence | The system evaluates the **difference in bands** between the Credibility Score and the Influence Factor. A difference of zero or one (“in range”) indicates alignment. A difference greater than one (“out of range”) indicates misalignment and applies a proportional penalty. --- ### Mechanics #### 1. Delta Calculation Each user’s Score Bracket (**S**) and Influence Percentile (**I**) are mapped to numeric indices (e.g., 1–5). The **Credibility–Influence Delta (CID)** is calculated as: CID = | S − I | **Example:** A user in *Bracket 4 (Exemplary)* but *Influence Band 2 (Low Influence)* has `CID = 2` (a “miss of 2”). --- #### 2. Penalty Application A penalty is applied when `CID ≥ 1`. Penalties increase in severity as the gap widens, but remain relatively soft to preserve fairness and accessibility. | **CID Difference** | **Impact Level** | **Description** | |---------------------|------------------|-----------------| | 1 | Negligible | Alignment is mostly consistent; no or minimal adjustment. | | 2 | Small | Slight misalignment; small penalty applied. | | 3 | Medium | Noticeable misalignment; moderate penalty applied. | | 4+ | Large | Strong misalignment; significant penalty applied. | Alignment (`CID = 0`) yields no change, and *over-influential* users (higher I than S) are not penalized. --- #### 3. Intent - Ensure *Exemplary* (2000) and above tiers reflect individuals with both **high trust** and **high reach**. - Prevent spoofed or low-impact accounts from attaining high credibility. - Maintain fairness: users can still achieve *Reputable* status with limited influence, but *Exemplary* requires either broader recognition or market validation. --- ## Motivation Ethos aims to reward **authentic, socially validated reputation**. Currently, users can achieve high credibility through review and vouch activity even if their influence factor is low. This creates inflated top-end scores that do not correlate with actual visibility or impact. The **Credibility–Influence Delta** introduces balance between **depth of trust** and **breadth of influence**. It ensures that the highest scores (2000+) represent users who are both respected *and recognized*. This update helps to: - Prevent Sybil clusters and reputation farming. - Encourage genuine participation and organic network growth. - Strengthen the credibility signal at the top of the scoring ladder. --- ## Score Component Adjustments | **Component** | **Change** | **Rationale** | |----------------|-------------|----------------| | *Credibility–Influence Delta* | New component (penalty scales by CID difference: small, medium, large) | Penalizes misalignment between reputation and influence. | | *Top-end thresholds (2000+)* | Slightly rebalanced upward | Reflects higher expectations for influence + reputation alignment. | --- ## Rationale Ethos believes true credibility is *two-dimensional*: - **Reputation** — earned through trustworthy behavior and peer validation. - **Influence** — earned through reach, visibility, and impact. Someone reputable but unknown is locally trusted yet globally invisible. Someone known but untrustworthy is visible yet unreliable. The **Credibility–Influence Delta** ensures that *Exemplary* represents those who are both **trusted and known** — the benchmark for global credibility within the Ethos ecosystem.
on Ethos · 2327· 12mo ago · neutral205
on Ethos · 2327· 12mo ago · neutral205“An agent I deployed to combat AI slop on Ethos”I really hope that it doesn’t call me out in this review for it
on eleosagent.eth · 1318· 11mo ago96
“Farmer turned AI slopper”Buying reviews from people eventually turned into him getting slashed and crashing out over it now he’s out here farming with AI slop all over the timeline and keeps showing up in my feed he’s replying to people several times a minute over and over. part of the problem for CT right now
on krajekis · 1205· 10mo ago · negative69
on krajekis · 1205· 10mo ago · negative69“Reason to be cautious about Jampzey”People wanted me to negatively review Jampzey instead of slashing him ( I mean fair, the Hydraze slash was inconclusive, it's unlikely to pass so I'll post my thoughts here ) TLDR: - Jampzey is not as reputable as he seems - Jampzey was promoting an obvious ponzi to his group - Jampzey sold 100e worth of NFT right before ponzi collapse - This is sad because I actually always liked Jampzey and thought he was a solid member of our community. What makes Jampzey's case stand out from the other defendants in this lawsuit is that he practically told on himself. When he first introduced the TradeAI B2B investment pools to his On Chain Buccaneers community on July 14, 2023, he acknowledged in his own words that "there is always an element of Ponzi." He said it was "a highly risky play"... then in the same message told everyone he'd already withdrawn profits five times and encouraged them to deposit. That's not a disclaimer. That's someone who understood the risk, profited from it early, and passed the bag to his followers. He didn't stop there. Over the following months, Jampzey bragged on Discord about pulling 35.9 ETH (roughly $67,000) out of the TradeAI pools. He told his community that "99% of users in TAI via OCB are in profits" and that "not ONE PERSON is in the red on this trade." He was relentless in promoting a scheme offering 15% returns every 10 days.. so like, 14,000% annualized... as if it were a legitimate opportunity. 214 people from around the world are now plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-9378-LAK, S.D.N.Y.) that tells a very different story: the trading accounts actually lost over $4 million, and the only way anyone ever saw a return was from newer depositors' money. Jampzey's involvement went deeper than promotion, allegedly. He co-founded Flare Labs, which the complaint describes as being embedded in TradeAI's operations. He co-founded OCB, the community that served as one of the primary funnels for investor money. He sat on the governance team of the UA3/StakX syndicates. His team members were signatories on the multisig controlling investor funds (ALLEGEDLY, as hydraze would say). He publicly stated that OCB put "a lot of our resources, reputation, and weight behind TradeAI." And then, in late September and early October 2023 - right before the whole thing publicly imploded - **he sold 100 ETH worth of NFTs at peak prices.** Draw your own conclusions from that timing. I don't think Jampzey's credibility score reflects who he actually is.
on Jampzey · 1783· 7mo ago · negative827
on Jampzey · 1783· 7mo ago · negative827
