On June 5, 2025, @heycape_ opened a slash on Ethos against @crypto__kermit, seeking to cut his score by 214. At the time, Ethos listed @heycape_ as reputable and @crypto__kermit as neutral.
The case drew attention for what it meant beyond one account. Kermit had a strong record of positive reviews, and Ethos noted that the people who backed him also had credibility on the line.
The accusation
@heycape_ summed up the case in one line:
“man accuses half of CT and the whole airdrop farming community off baseless claims”
In other words, @heycape_ argued that @crypto__kermit had made unfounded accusations against a large part of crypto Twitter (CT) and against airdrop farmers as a group. A slash puts that kind of claim in front of the community rather than leaving it as one person’s complaint.
Kermit’s record on Ethos
When the slash opened, @crypto__kermit’s profile showed:
- 48 reviews, all of them positive
- 1 vouch for 0.01 ETH
That gave the slash a clear tension: a single detailed criticism from a reputable account set against a profile with no negative reviews at all.
Supporters had credibility at stake
Ethos pointed out that Kermit had many supporters who were risking their own credibility if the slash succeeded. According to Ethos, a successful slash would cost each of them 25 credibility score. The accounts Ethos named included:
- @0xAbhiP
- @0xsammy
- @themansion_eth
- @fridgeintheopen
- @CoacherJD
- @Carlitoswa_y
- @kickzeth
- @ruthybuilds
Ethos added that more accounts beyond these were also exposed.
This is part of what makes reputation on Ethos meaningful. Backing someone isn’t free: when you stand behind an account, your own credibility is tied to how that account holds up under scrutiny.
How it ended
The posts announcing the slash don’t record its outcome, so whether the 214-point slash was upheld, and whether Kermit’s supporters lost score, isn’t covered here.
This thread first appeared on X.
