On June 4, 2025, @CyphrGM opened a slash on Ethos against @TrustlessState, seeking 65 credibility score. The slash was titled “Wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
The case stood out because of who was on the receiving end. @TrustlessState had a strong record on the network, and the slash didn’t only put their own score at stake. It also put the scores of the people who had backed them at risk.
The accounts involved
Ethos listed both accounts as neutral at the time of the slash. The numbers behind @TrustlessState were notable:
- 67 reviews
- 94% positive
- 63 supporters
A record like that suggests broad trust from the community. The slash title, “Wolf in sheep’s clothing,” framed the case as a challenge to that image: a claim that the account’s reputation didn’t match the reality.
Supporters had score on the line
On Ethos, every account gets a credibility score from what others say about it, and backing someone ties part of your own credibility to theirs. According to Ethos, @TrustlessState’s 63 supporters risked losing credibility score if the slash was approved.
Ethos named several of those supporters:
- @dragossden
- @peceka
- @TheKimjim
- @lorepunk
- @wang_xiaolou
- @aventurine_eth
- @Neil_from_MNL
- @notjazii
Ethos noted that “many more” beyond this list would also lose credibility score if the slash went through.
Why it mattered
The case showed how reputation on Ethos is connected. Supporting an account isn’t a free signal: when that account is challenged, the people who stood behind it share in the outcome. That gives supporters a reason to think carefully about who they back, and gives a slash weight beyond a single account.
The outcome
The full case was published on Ethos at app.ethos.network/activity/slash/82/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing. The posts announcing the slash don’t record whether it was approved, or how it affected the scores of @TrustlessState and their supporters.
This thread first appeared on X.
