Wall of Shame

Information about predatory KOL behaviour already exists. It is just scattered — a thread here, a Telegram screenshot there, a wallet somebody traced six months ago and nobody bookmarked. Nobody has collected it around the person.

This is that place. Accounts are rated by the people who have dealt with them, and every claim on a profile is a receipt: one documented incident, with the evidence attached, submitted under an X account.

The Shame Score is 0–100 per person. It combines two things: what has been documented about them, and what the people who have dealt with them say. Neither alone decides it.

Each receipt earns a weight from its evidence:

weight = severity × credibility × evidence

• Severity — minor 1.0, serious 2.0, severe 3.5.
• Credibility — credible 1.0, unverified 0.45, contested 0.20, debunked 0.0. A debunked receipt contributes nothing; it stays visible anyway.
• Evidence — 0.6 with nothing attached, rising to 1.15 with an on-chain reference, media, and a verified transaction.
• Community — (up + 1.5) / (up + down + 3). A new receipt starts at neutral 0.5 and needs real volume to move, so five friends cannot swing a profile.

Then the profile score saturates:

score = round(100 × (1 − e^(−Σweight / 12)))

Ratings on the account are added to that: each person calling an account a bad actor is worth 0.3, each disagreement −0.3. One severe, credible, fully-evidenced receipt lands around 29. Five land around 81. A single unverified minor claim with nothing attached lands at 2 — noise does not rank people. The curve is deliberate: the twentieth receipt matters less than the first, and the number cannot be farmed to infinity.

There is no time decay. A rug from two years ago still happened. Recency is shown separately as “last documented”, never baked into the score.

Bands: LOW 0–19 · FLAGGED 20–39 · HEAVY 40–64 · SEVERE 65–84 · TERMINAL 85+. Full working: how scoring works.

The leaderboard shows tokens implicated — distinct mints — not a rug count. One rug generates a dozen receipts, and counting receipts as rugs inflates a number that then cannot be defended. Distinct mints is the honest figure.

Sign in with X, then submit a receipt. You need the X account it is about, a title, what happened, a category, and a severity. Everything else is optional and everything else is what makes it count.

• Name any X handle. Nobody curates who is on the wall — an account goes up the moment someone files the first receipt against it, and every later receipt on that handle attaches to the same profile.
• Paste a mint, a transaction signature, or a wallet and it becomes on-chain evidence. Transactions get verified against the chain.
• Attach screenshots. Up to six. Deleted tweets are the most valuable thing you can upload.
• Write what a stranger needs in order to check it themselves. If you have nothing to document, rate the account instead — that counts too.

Three receipts per account per day, and one rating per account — changeable, but you cannot rate yourself, and you only get one.

Anyone whose X handle matches a tracked profile can claim it and respond. Responses render inline in the timeline, not buried at the bottom. See right of reply and takedown policy.

Nothing here is a legal finding. It is a record of what a community documented, with the evidence attached, so you can decide for yourself.