Between August 11 and August 27, 2025, Ethos highlighted a series of projects it linked to Ethos scores in how they rewarded and selected users: a planned leaderboard integration, an NFT allowlist, a social capital launch pad and a fundraising program. Ethos grouped them under a single phrase: “ethos everywhere.”
The common thread was a familiar problem. When a project hands out rewards, allowlist spots or allocations, bots and duplicate accounts compete with real users. These projects turned to a credibility score as one way to tell them apart.
August 11: the bot problem
The run of posts started with a post from @serpinxbt, who argued that @infinex “could have solved a large part of their bot problem” with Ethos. @serpinxbt added that this wasn’t obvious to companies yet, but would be soon, and that “the future of AUTHENTICALLY rewarding a community runs thru the Ethos score,” particularly “via negativa,” meaning by filtering out accounts rather than only picking winners.
Ethos quoted the post and repeated the line: the future of authentically rewarding a community runs through the Ethos score.
August 13: Puffpaw’s leaderboard
Two days later, @puffpaw announced that it planned to integrate Ethos and Discord into its POV leaderboard ranking algorithm. Puffpaw listed two steps for users:
- Achieve a higher score on Ethos.
- Join Discord and bind the same wallet for future activities, by typing “/set” in the #command channel.
According to Puffpaw, both would help boost users’ social mining efficiency. Ethos’s response: “they’re learning... ethos everywhere.”
August 15: Cerebro’s allowlist
On August 15, Ethos described itself as “the #1 way to ensure your allowlists, airdrops & token allocations go to REAL, credible users,” and pointed to @cerebro_hq as an example. Cerebro was giving about 250 allowlist spots for its then-upcoming mint to Ethos users who met either of two conditions:
- An Ethos credibility score over 2000, or
- Holding a validator NFT
Ethos followed up with a clarification that the two conditions were alternatives, not both required. It also noted that the validator snapshot had already been taken, and shared validator #58, owned by @Poppa626, as an example of the NFT. The posts don’t record how the mint went.
August 23: Blind and social capital
On August 23, @goblindxyz announced that Blind was live, inviting people to start leveraging their social capital at goblind.xyz.
Ethos framed it as a question: social capital launch pads where Ethos scores are an indicator of trust, reputation and credibility? Then it added a caveat: “well… only if they choose to share it.”
August 27: StationX and fundraising
The last post covered fundraising. @stationxnetwork introduced Genesis, seats it described as a gratitude for its supporters and the wider crypto Twitter community. StationX listed several groups as eligible:
- Members and supporters of StationX
- Profiles with an Ethos reputation above 1300
- 5,000 @monad card holders
- Users of fundraising platforms
- Selected yappers from the @KaitoAI universe
Ethos explained why a credibility check matters here. As it put it, no one wants to fight for an allocation in a fundraise against someone holding 100 Palau IDs. And for founders, the right people on a cap table can be the difference between success and chaos. Ethos said it was glad to see StationX integrating Ethos scores into all facets of fundraising.
What the posts had in common
Each project used the Ethos score in a different setting, but for a similar purpose:
- Puffpaw: ranking users on a leaderboard
- Cerebro: deciding who got allowlist spots
- Blind: signaling trust on a social capital launch pad, if users shared it
- StationX: setting eligibility for Genesis seats
In each case, the Ethos score was used, planned or pitched as a way to steer rewards and access toward real, credible people rather than bots or duplicate identities.
This story first appeared on X.
