On June 6, 2025, @katexbt opened a slash against @marginfi on Ethos, seeking to cut the project’s credibility score by 200. At the time, Ethos rated @katexbt as reputable and @marginfi as neutral.
A slash puts a specific criticism of an account in front of the community. This one also showed how a single case could affect more than the account being slashed. Under a then-recent rule change, other users stood to lose score if it succeeded.
The case against marginfi
@katexbt summed up the complaint in one line:
“One of the worse practices in managing a project - a showcase on wasted potential and bad comms”
The criticism centered on how the project was run and how it communicated, not on any single incident named in the Ethos post. The full slash is available at app.ethos.network.
Where marginfi stood on Ethos
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. When the slash was opened, @marginfi’s record looked like this:
- Ethos rating: neutral
- Reviews: 17
- Positive share: 50%
An evenly split review history meant the community had not settled on a clear view of the project. A slash from a reputable account added a detailed, public argument to that mixed picture.
Other users had score at stake
Ethos noted that several users could also be affected. According to the post, the following accounts stood to lose up to 20 credibility score each if the slash was successful:
- @zp_land
- @peceka
- @zimmerallday
- @smed_b
- @HakResearch
Ethos attributed this to the EIP-3.1 change, which it described as recent at the time. The post did not go into further detail about how the rule worked, but the effect was clear: the outcome of a slash could reach beyond the slashed account to other users on the network.
The outcome
The Ethos posts announced the slash and listed what was at stake. They do not record how the slash ended or whether @marginfi’s score was reduced.
This thread first appeared on X.
