On January 23, 2026, @rarefinds opened a slash on Ethos against @blknoiz06, better known as Ansem, seeking to reduce Ansem’s credibility score by 178. On January 25, Ethos reported that the slash had failed to reach the 60% consensus required to pass.

The case shows how a slash works as a community decision. One person makes an accusation, and it only changes someone’s score if enough voters agree.

The accusation

@rarefinds titled the slash “Slash one of the biggest grifters breathing” and opened the case with this line:

“What can we say about Ansem, the man who has shilled more rugs (and undisclosed) coins than almost anyone else on X?”

At the time the slash opened, Ansem had 231 supporters on Ethos. The slash page is at app.ethos.network/activity/slash/362.

What slashing is for

Ethos is an onchain reputation network where people review and vouch for each other, and every account gets a credibility score from what others say about it. A slash is a formal case to reduce that score, put to a vote.

When it announced the slash, Ethos pointed readers who were unfamiliar with slashing and its intent to the Ethos whitepaper. It also noted two points about incentives at the time:

• There was no incentive for slashing someone
• There was no incentive for participating in a slash

In other words, people who opened slashes or voted on them weren’t doing so for a reward.

How the vote ended

On January 25, 2026, Ethos reported that the slash proposal against @blknoiz06 had failed. To pass and reduce Ansem’s credibility score, it needed 60% consensus, and it fell short of that threshold.

Two details stood out in the result:

• Most comments suggested the case “needs more evidence.” Voters weren’t persuaded by the accusation as presented.
• The slash failed on a last-minute “defend” vote by @BagCalls.

Because the slash didn’t pass, Ansem’s credibility score was not reduced by the 178 points @rarefinds had sought.

Why the outcome matters

A serious accusation against a widely followed account isn’t enough on its own to change a score on Ethos. The 60% threshold means a slash needs broad agreement, and the voter comments in this case show that people looked for evidence behind the claims rather than voting on reputation or headline alone. The narrow finish, decided by a single late defend vote, also shows how close a community decision can be.

This story first appeared on X.