Review for Sanjeeb Das
“Suspicious User (Human Verification)”
This user approached me regarding Human verification. I informed him of the terms of my offer, and he agreed to have his social and on-chain behavior examined. I then began asking him various questions that raised doubts for me, while simultaneously studying his profile.
Sanjeeb behaved calmly and cooperatively, helping to clarify everything. However, during the discussion, my suspicions were not dispelled; on the contrary, they grew stronger.
I want to document the verification process through this review and describe several strange factors due to which he was denied verification through me.
Through on-chain research, a connection was discovered with other registered Ethos profiles. He called all but one of them his friends. Below, I will mention only some of them that play an important role in this review:
Gojo was mentioned by him as a good friend with whom he talks on the phone almost every day.
Noira he could not remember when I asked about him.
Yashu was also mentioned as a friend.
Animesh, a friend (confirmed through a review). Was caught sybiling (negative review with arguments from an Ethos team member).
Sathak – a friend.
King - a friend
Why questions were asked about these accounts:
2025/09/24 12:47:12 – Sathak sends tokens to user Sanjeeb: 0.011 HYPE ($0.70)
2025/09/24 12:49:35 – Sanjeeb returns tokens to user Sathak: 0.001 ETH ($0.80)
A swap was made.
2025/09/24 19:18:34 – Sathak sends tokens to user Burn: 0.005 HYPE ($0.30)
Users Burn and Sathak have positive reviews from Animesh (who was caught sybiling). R1, R2.
Sanjeeb also supported user Animesh with a mutual positive review.
2026/04/11 20:38:15 – Gojo sends tokens to user King: 6 USDT
2026/04/11 22:27:23 – Sanjeb sends tokens to user King: 0.00001 ETH (0.02)
2026/04/11 22:29:47 – King sends tokens to himself from another address: 0.00002 ETH (0.05)
Evidence that the second address belongs to user King is linked here.
King himself was invited by user Sanjeeb.
The EVM address of user Gojo was activated by user Noira (the very first transactions, several of them):
2025/09/23 18:38:47 – receive.
2025/09/23 18:40:11 – receive.
2025/09/25 19:01:23 – sends back almost the full amount of the previous two transactions.
I interpret this as an activation of the address on the Ethereum network to start counting the age of the account.
After that, several more on-chain interactions occur between these users, and soon they shift through obfuscated CEX transfers.
The same thing happens with Noira's EVM address. It is activated by user Yashu:
2025/09/15 20:35:41 – receive on the Base.
2025/09/16 19:37:11 – return on the Base.
Yashu has only one activity on Ethos, which is an incoming positive review from Noira.
Noira has incoming positive reviews from Animesh and Gojo.
//////
These are the main reasons why I wanted to find out from Sanjeeb whether he knows these people.
//////
I remind you that during our correspondence, we found out that Gojo is a regular contact of Sanjeb, with whom he speaks almost every day (calls).
"we are good friends , ser I talk with him almost daily , even today talked on mobile phone"
He did not recognize Noira immediately, but later he clarified by providing a screenshots that this is also his friend, whom he knows from the Monad project and knows as a person through voice calls. In the screenshot he provided, Animesh and Noira were simultaneously captured having a discussion with Sanjeeb at one point.
"Ser I checked monad server and found some conversations with noira , he changed his profile picture and name , we were in monad server also talked several times in vc"
Thanks to this, we found out that Sanjeeb knows Noira, knows Gojo, and knows Animesh.
Noira was invited by user Gojo, received a positive review from him, but forgot to reciprocate, and only after a month, following a series of positive reviews addressed to other users, he remembered Gojo (who, based on their positive reviews, is a friend).
I informed user Sanjeeb that I have arguments supporting the idea that Gojo and Noira are the same person, to which he objected (since he had already stated earlier that he had spoken to both of them via voice calls, and Gojo is a very close contact of his).
However, there are some oddities here that also raised doubts for me:
Gojo and Noira previously left positive reviews for user Sanjeeb, to which he did not react in any way (it would be expected that for a good contact with whom Sanjeeb is in touch almost every day, a reciprocal review would have been written). But no.
Of all three mentioned accounts, only Animesh received a reciprocal review (and he has been exposed for sybiling).
In addition to this, contrary to Sanjeeb's claims that these are different people and that he identified this difference through voice calls, we have:
On-chain connections and patterns similar to sybiling.
The presence of 2–3 suspicious actors.
The social connection between Noira and Gojo:
During a giveaway in the Monad ecosystem, EVM addresses were mixed up.
Gojo repeatedly published Noira's address.
Noira repeatedly published Gojo addres.
Posting occur both on different days and on the same day.
To say here, "I asked a friend because I couldn't do it myself" - is impossible.
The following should also be mentioned: another pattern. The use of two identical phones, where the similarity is explained by the browser color scheme, browser type, operating system type, and connection type.
On February 22, 2025, Gojo publishes a post.
On Oct 31, 2025, Noira publishes a message with a screenshot on the Ritual project server. A chat screenshot. The original screenshot.
The posts on X are also similar in terms of writing style.
Quote by Sandjeeb:
"yeas ser at that time we talked together in monad , and gojo and noira I talked with them they different guy , I dont talked with Animesh right now , during monad tge he insulted me thats why I didnt talk with him"
Based on these facts, one can conclude that user Sanjeeb is either being misled himself or has misled me in order to:
1/ Distance suspicion of sybiling from himself, or
2/ Distance suspicion from his friend Gojo, who is abusing the Ethos system through sybiling.
The combination of all the factors listed in this review prompted me to send a negative signal regarding Sanjeeb's profile and to deny him verification.
Comments (7)
I strongly oppose the conclusions reached in this investigation.
Before anything else, I would like to ask a few simple questions:
Did you ever speak with me directly before publishing this review?
Did you ever speak with Noira directly before concluding that we are the same person?
If not, why was such a serious conclusion published without hearing from the people involved?
If you are confident in your conclusion, would you be willing to discuss it in a video call with all involved parties present?
If I send funds to a friend, or a friend sends funds to me, how does that prove we are the same person? Can friends not help each other when needed?
This review have been published before a complete investigation was conducted.
You repeatedly claim that Gojo and Noira are the same person, yet no conclusive evidence has been presented to support that allegation. Suspicion, assumptions, wallet interactions, mutual friends, or participation in the same communities do not prove that two individuals are the same person.Noira is my classmate. We study together and worked on the same college project. During that period, he was heavily focused on academics and our final-year project, which is why he became much less active in Web3.
Many of the people mentioned in this review met through the Monad community. That is how online communities work. People interact, become friends, join the same Discord servers, participate in the same events, and occasionally help each other. None of that constitutes evidence of sybil activity.
The explanation regarding Sanjeeb's confusion about Noira is straightforward. After the Monad TGE, Noira became inactive because of college commitments and our project work. He also changed his username a few weeks ago. As a result, Sanjeeb did not immediately recognize the name. Once reminded, he remembered him from previous interactions and voice chats.
Sanjeeb Das and I are good friends. We speak regularly through phone calls and voice chats, often on a daily basis. Turning a normal friendship into evidence of suspicious behavior is unreasonable.
If the goal was to determine the truth, the obvious step would have been to speak directly with the people involved before publishing allegations. Both Noira and I are willing to join a video call, answer questions, and provide college identification privately if verification is required. I can prove that Noira and I are different individuals.
The claims regarding wallet interactions are equally unconvincing. Both Noira and I were new to Web3 at the time. Friends sending funds to each other is normal behavior. Does receiving USDT or funds from a friend automatically become suspicious? If that is the standard being applied, then countless ordinary users would fall under the same suspicion.
You also referenced transactions involving King. I still have chat records showing occasions when funds were requested. Those records can be provided if necessary. Small transfers between friends are not proof of coordinated abuse.
Of all the names mentioned in this review, I personally know only Yashu, Noira, Sanjeeb Das, and King. I do not know Sathak, and I do not know Animesh personally. Seeing someone in a public Discord server does not make me responsible for their actions.
The main problem with this review is that it presents allegations as though they are established facts. The conclusion appears to be based on assumptions and interpretations rather than direct evidence. Being friends, talking in the same communities, participating in voice chats, or transferring funds between friends does not prove that multiple accounts belong to the same individual.
If there is actual evidence proving that Gojo and Noira are the same person, then present it. If not, then this remains an allegation rather than a fact.
False allegations like these can seriously damage people's trust in the Ethos ecosystem.
Right now, it feels like the focus is more on appearing strict than on making sure conclusions are actually correct. When loyal and genuine users can be labeled as suspicious based on assumptions and associations rather than clear evidence, it sends the wrong message to the community.
The purpose of investigations should be to identify real bad actors, not to push away innocent users who have participated in good faith. Reviews based on incomplete information do more harm than good and ultimately hurt the credibility of the platform itself.
At the moment, it feels as though suspicion is being treated as evidence, while the burden is being shifted onto us to prove that those suspicions are wrong. That is not how a fair investigation should work. Serious allegations should be supported by clear, verifiable evidence, not assumptions.
If there is genuine interest in finding the truth, I remain willing to provide chats, participate in a video call, and verify my identity. I have nothing to hide.
Here’s a corrected and clearer version while keeping your meaning intact:
No, it's not accurate. I told you everything I know accurately. When we were working on Monad, we joined Ethos and talked there almost daily with them. Right now, Gojo is in touch with me because we are working on Base together.
During Monad, I also talked with Noira ( Lezot - previous name when we were in Monad ), whose DP and name changed, which is why I couldn't identify him initially. Later, I searched, found the connection, and shared the screenshots with you where Animesh’s chats were also visible.
If I already knew all these things, why would I share them with you? I would have tried to hide them instead.
If anybody from my Monad circle does anything wrong, that is not my fault. Where exactly did I do something wrong?
Even now, I am saying Gojo and Noira are different users, but here I’m still being marked as suspicious. Suspicious for what? For telling the truth?
I told you to bring them on video calls or VC — I’m always ready for that.
As friends, we occasionally transfer tokens to each other. Suppose you review someone positively today and that person does something wrong in the future — would that become your responsibility?
So where exactly is my fault here?