On November 22, 2025, @stellarobject opened a slash against @0xrwu on Ethos. The slash was titled “Lack of Transparency Regarding Coinbase’s Acquisition of @VECTORDOTFUN” and put 200 credibility score at stake.
The case is about how an acquisition was handled. It is not about whether the deal happened. A slash turns that kind of concern into a public record on Ethos instead of leaving it scattered across replies on X.
What the slash alleged
@stellarobject focused on process. In the slash, they wrote:
“The issue is the way the process was handled, demonstrating an unethical approach to doing business and a disregard for other people’s money”
That statement makes two separate charges:
- An unethical approach to doing business, based on how the acquisition process was run
- A disregard for other people’s money, pointing to the effect on people with funds involved
The title of the slash points to the core complaint: a lack of transparency around Coinbase’s acquisition of @VECTORDOTFUN.
What a slash means on Ethos
Ethos is an onchain reputation network where people review and vouch for each other, and every account gets a credibility score based on what others say about it. Reviews and vouches build that score up. A slash challenges it directly by putting a set amount of credibility score on the line. In this case the amount was 200.
Slashes matter because they are specific. A slash names the account, states the concern, and gives the community a single place to read the argument and judge it.
Where to read it
The full slash, including @stellarobject’s case, was published at app.ethos.network/activity/slash/329.
The posts that announced the slash don’t record its outcome. They also don’t record whether the 200 credibility score was ultimately deducted from @0xrwu.
This thread first appeared on X.
