On August 5, 2025, @0xJohannes_ opened a slash against @Pentosh1 on Ethos, calling them a “grifter who did undisclosed shills, dumped on his community, and rugged his NFT project.” Ethos noted that 48 people who had positively reviewed Pentosh1 stood to lose credibility score.
The case shows how reputation on Ethos works in both directions. A slash doesn’t only challenge the account being accused. It also puts something at stake for the people who vouched for that account with positive reviews.
Who was involved
At the time of the slash, Ethos listed the two accounts this way:
- @0xJohannes_, the account opening the slash: exemplary
- @Pentosh1, the account being slashed: neutral
The accusation
The slash made three allegations against Pentosh1:
- Undisclosed shills: promoting projects without disclosing a connection to them
- Dumping on their community: selling on the people who followed their calls
- Rugging an NFT project
These were claims made by @0xJohannes_ as part of the slash.
The evidence cited
@0xJohannes_ pointed to several well-documented posts on X about Pentosh1’s past:
In the post Ethos quoted, @CL207 wrote: “damn pentoshi really shilled RLB undisclosed.” @CL207 also raised a concern about the Rollbit team’s claim that “if RLB hits 0.2$ we pay more,” suggesting the team could be predatory because it could suppress the price, while adding they weren’t saying that was the team’s intent. @CL207 noted as well that the person calling out the shill was, in their words, “also a csgo scammer.”
What was at stake for reviewers
The detail Ethos highlighted was the 48 people who had positively reviewed Pentosh1. According to Ethos, those reviewers stood to lose credibility score as a result of the slash.
That is what separates a review on Ethos from a passing endorsement. Vouching for someone ties part of your own standing to theirs, so a strong case against an account reaches the people who spoke up for it.
The posts don’t record how the slash ended.
This thread first appeared on X.
