On July 9, 2025, @HakResearch opened a slash against @UMAprotocol on Ethos for 240 credibility score. The slash was titled “UMA Manipulated the ‘Will Zelenskyy Wear a Suit Before July?’ Market on Polymarket.”
The case moved a dispute about a single prediction market onto a reputation network. On Ethos, people review and vouch for each other, and every account gets a credibility score from what others say about it. A slash ties a specific accusation to an account’s standing on the network.
What the slash alleged
The slash centered on one Polymarket market: “Will Zelenskyy Wear a Suit Before July?” @HakResearch’s claim, set out in the slash title, was that UMA manipulated that market.
@HakResearch framed the problem as larger than one bad outcome. Ethos highlighted this line from the case:
“This is not just a technical flaw – it is a systemic failure.”
That framing matters. A technical flaw suggests a bug that can be fixed. A systemic failure, as @HakResearch put it, points to something wrong with how the process works as a whole, which is a more serious charge against a protocol’s credibility.
The slash at a glance
- Filed by: @HakResearch
- Against: @UMAprotocol
- Amount: 240 credibility score
- Subject: the “Will Zelenskyy Wear a Suit Before July?” market on Polymarket
- Announced by Ethos: July 9, 2025
Where to read the full case
Ethos published the full slash details on its app, at app.ethos.network/activity/slash/151. The page holds @HakResearch’s complete argument, beyond the title and the quoted line Ethos shared on X.
Outcome
The Ethos posts announced the slash when it opened. They don’t record how the slash was resolved, so the result isn’t covered here.
What the case shows is how Ethos lets a specific, public accusation against a well-known protocol sit alongside its reputation, rather than staying scattered across threads and replies.
This thread first appeared on X.
