The recent uproar surrounding this issue leads me to conclude, after reviewing the evidence from both sides, that it's not that serious. It's just that the involved parties misunderstood each other a bit, and the chain reaction ultimately amplified the conflict.

However, this incident has exposed an ongoing problem: Web3 lacks a reliable "small court."

In Web2, there are platforms and companies, so when disputes arise, there is someone to mediate. Web3 has a few projects with "reputation systems," like Ethos, but I feel it currently doesn't quite qualify.

Its vision and ideas are certainly good, but under the expectations of airdrops, users banding together to give each other good reviews will gradually render the system ineffective. Additionally, the lack of independent judgment from the crowd stirred up by KOLs has made this issue even more pronounced.

If a "fair mechanism" doesn't even provide a space for rebuttal, then it is not arbitration but rather public opinion lynching.

I hope Ethos can implement a countermeasure that gives those who receive negative reviews a chance to rebut, and assess in a more fair and independent manner.