Sending 1 or more MORALS to another wallet. The specific amount beyond the ≥1 threshold does not affect the moral score — sending 1 MORALS and sending 1,000,000 MORALS both count as one proclamation of goodness. What matters is how many unique wallets proclaim you good and who those wallets are, not the total tokens received. That said, you should send a lot of money to moral people. Many of them could really use the funding.

I recommend that you think of the big names in crypto who you think are really good, but you should also take the time to reward everyday people who you see being nice and virtuous in some small way. Not everyone needs to be Mother Teresa, just find good people and reward them.

Sending any amount less than 1 MORALS (a fraction of a token, just a little “dust”) to another wallet. This is a deliberate act of moral disapproval. The great part is that a million people could each send 0.000000001 MORALS to Andrew Tate and he would be cursed forever while still having received less than a penny in total.

You should consider sending dust to scammers, exploiters, and known bad actors. But also to people who are simply assholes, or who are revealing that they are inherently concerned with themselves more than the common good. It’s also possible that we’ll see some supposedly good people undermining the system by indiscriminately sending large amounts of morals to lots of people who are not necessarily moral. If you see this, proclaim these people as bad in order to reduce their influence.

Morals only counts sends where one person deliberately transfers MORALS to another. When you send MORALS from your wallet directly to another person’s wallet, that counts. When you buy or sell MORALS on a DEX, provide liquidity, or interact with most other smart contracts, those transactions are automatically filtered out from the data displayed on this website. The technical distinction is reliable: DeFi protocols use a different mechanism (approve + transferFrom) than direct sends (transfer), and we only count the latter. One exception is our own batched airdrops, which we route through the public Disperse contract on Base so we can pay hundreds of recipients in a single transaction. Those sends still count as moral judgments from the Airdrop wallet.

Mostly, but it depends. The system is designed to try and count anything that really represents a person, and exclude protocol plumbing (DEX routers, vesting vaults, bridges, etc.).

Specifically, the indexer accepts sends from:

• Externally owned accounts (EOAs). This means regular wallets controlled by a private key (MetaMask, Rainbow, hardware wallets like Ledger, the standard "I have a seed phrase" wallet).
• EIP-7702 delegated EOAs. Since the Pectra upgrade in May 2025, a regular wallet can temporarily delegate to a smart contract for the duration of a transaction without giving up its private key. The owner is still in control. We treat these as regular wallets.
• Recognized smart wallets. Account-abstraction wallets where a real person controls the address via passkeys, social recovery, or similar mechanisms. This includes Coinbase Smart Wallet, Safe multisigs (in all current versions on Base: v1.3.0 L2, v1.4.1 mainnet, and v1.4.1 L2), Farcaster in-app wallets when they’re built as smart contracts (the ones using Privy’s smart-wallet infrastructure; some older Farcaster in-app wallets are plain EOAs and are covered by the first bullet above), and any wallet that uses the standard EIP-1167 minimal-proxy pattern shared by many newer account-abstraction wallets. We recognize them by looking at the contract code at the address: if it matches a known user-wallet pattern, the wallet participates just like a regular one would.
• Curated organizational addresses. Some corporates, DAOs, and crypto projects use custom contract setups for their treasuries. Those don’t always match the patterns above, so we maintain a whitelist of known organizational wallets. If you control a wallet for an organization that should be on this list, reach out to me on Farcaster (@morals) or X (@morals_fyi) and I’ll add it. If approved, you’ll retroactively get credit for MORALS you’ve already sent or received.

The wallets we deliberately exclude are protocol plumbing or automated infrastructure, such as Sablier vesting vaults, Uniswap routers, bridge endpoints, and similar contracts can hold or move tokens, but they aren’t really moral actors. If we missed a wallet type that should be included (a new account-abstraction implementation, for instance), let me know.

You can swap ETH for MORALS on Aerodrome.

The moral score is a number from 0 to 100 that reflects the community’s moral judgment of a wallet address (judgments are not applied to ENS names or Farcaster usernames, only the associated 0x address). It uses a system called a Trust-Seeded Bayesian Score. Here’s how it works:

One vote per person. Each sender gets exactly one vote on each recipient, determined by their most recent send. If you proclaimed someone good and later change your mind, sending them dust replaces your earlier endorsement with a shaming — and vice versa. You can always change your mind, and only your latest opinion counts.

Who votes matters. Not all proclamations are weighted equally. Each vote is weighted by the sender’s “trust degree” — a measure of how closely connected that sender is to known moral actors. Wallets that are closer to the roots of the trust network carry more influence.

The trust degree system. When Morals launched, the founder identified a set of individuals and projects known to have good morals. These are “1st degree” trust anchors. All airdrop recipients become 1st degree trust anchors, so once the airdrops are complete the overwhelming majority of 1st degree wallets will have been determined by community voting. When a 1st degree wallet proclaims that someone is good, that person becomes “2nd degree.” When a 2nd degree wallet proclaims that someone new is good, they become “3rd degree.” The chain stops at 3rd degree — beyond that, the signal is too diluted. Wallets that haven’t been proclaimed good by anyone in the trust chain are “unranked.”

The weights:

The formula. Your moral score is essentially the ratio of weighted good to total weighted votes, adjusted by a Bayesian prior that prevents extreme scores from thin data:

Where:

• weighted_good = sum of vote weights from all wallets whose most recent send to you was good (≥1 MORALS)
• weighted_bad = sum of vote weights from all wallets whose most recent send to you was bad (<1 MORALS)
• m = the global average good ratio across community proclamations. Project wallet sends (airdrops, ecosystem fund grants, etc) are excluded from this average so the system’s default belief reflects organic community sentiment, not curatorial choices we made. m is itself Bayesian. If we used the raw empirical ratio (good votes ÷ total votes), a single early vote would peg m at 0 or 1 and break the system. So we shrink the raw ratio toward a neutral 0.5 prior using the same formula shape — essentially treating the system as if it had already seen K=20 weighted votes split 50/50 before the first organic vote arrived. With one organic good vote, m ≈ 0.524 (basically 0.5). With hundreds of organic votes, the prior fades quickly and m approaches the true empirical ratio. This is a live value that updates continuously. Current value: 0.698
• C = 2 (the confidence constant). This controls how much voting data is needed before your score diverges meaningfully from the global average. We may adjust this over time — the Time Machine pages record the parameter values used on each date.

What this means in practice: A new wallet starts near the global average. As more weighted votes come in, the score moves toward the wallet’s true ratio. Being proclaimed good by a 1st degree wallet moves the needle 100× more than by an unranked wallet. The same logic works one level up: the system as a whole starts near a neutral 0.5 and shifts toward the community’s actual good/bad split as organic proclamations accumulate.

If you don’t like this approach to the moral score, let me know! You can also adjust the filters on the leaderboards to ignore the moral score, or you can build your own scoring system based on the same onchain data.

Equal voting is trivially gameable. Anyone can create hundreds of wallets and proclaim themselves good, inflating their score at near-zero cost. By weighting votes based on the sender’s trust degree, Morals makes this kind of manipulation extremely expensive. An attacker would need to create 100 fake wallets — and get each one to send a separate transaction — just to equal the weight of one proclamation from a known moral actor. This makes the leaderboards much more resistant to manipulation without requiring any centralized moderation.

The initial set of 608 1st degree moral people was curated by me, the founder, via phase 1 of the airdrop. However, the vast majority of 1st degree people will be determined by the public over the following 2 years, through 8 quarterly community airdrops (phases 2–9), all of which will grant 1st degree status to all recipient wallets. Additionally, we have the Bad Actor Identification Program where we ask established crypto projects to send tiny amounts of MORALS to suspected bad actors they are already aware of. Crypto projects selected for this program (typically after getting community feedback) will also be granted 1st degree status.

You should review the original list of airdrop recipients. If you agree that these people are moral, then great. If you don’t, there’s no way to remove their 1st degree status, but the community can still totally destroy their moral score if I got it wrong. I surely got a few wrong because there are hundreds of people here who I know nothing about other than some virtuous onchain actions that they have taken. My own influence is designed to decay quickly as the community builds the true moral graph.

Everyone who has been sent ≥1 MORALS by a 1st degree address is given the status of 2nd degree address. Everyone who has been sent ≥1 MORALS by a 2nd degree address is given the status of 3rd degree address.

Just send them MORALS again. If you previously sent someone ≥1 MORALS (proclaiming them good) and now want to shame them, send them dust (<1 MORALS). Your new send replaces your previous vote — only your most recent opinion counts. The reverse works too: if you shamed someone and later decide they’re moral, sending them ≥1 MORALS flips your vote to good. You can change your mind as many times as you want; the system always reflects your latest judgment.

Yes. Your moral score can drop in two ways. First, if new wallets send you dust (<1 MORALS), each new shaming adds to your weighted_bad tally, pushing your score down. Second, if someone who previously proclaimed you good changes their mind and sends you dust instead, their vote flips from good to bad — removing their weight from your good tally and adding it to your bad tally. A single vote flip from a high-degree wallet can move your score significantly. Early scores are also more volatile because the Bayesian prior (the C constant) has more influence when you have few votes — so the first several votes matter a lot more than later ones.

The system has multiple layers of defense against manipulation. First, each wallet gets exactly one vote per recipient (determined by their most recent send), so a single wallet cannot amplify its influence by sending repeatedly — no matter how many transactions you send, you only count once. Second, the trust degree system means that votes from wallets connected to known moral actors carry far more weight (up to 100×) than votes from unknown wallets. Creating sybil wallets to proclaim yourself good is extremely inefficient. Third, the “whose opinion matters” filter lets anyone view the leaderboards through stricter lenses (high Neynar scores, Farcaster account age, ENS holders, etc.), and currently defaults to displaying results based on the proclamations of addresses with good scores. Fourth, the Bayesian prior prevents a small number of votes from creating extreme scores — you need sustained support from trusted wallets to build a high score. Fifth, only deliberate moral judgments count: DEX trades, liquidity provision, bridge transfers, and most other contract interactions are filtered out, and protocol plumbing (Sablier vaults, routers, etc.) can’t accumulate scores even when it receives MORALS as a side effect. No system is perfectly manipulation-proof, but the cost of gaming Morals is designed to be high enough that organic participation is always the easier path.

What’s decentralized: The MORALS token is a standard ERC-20 token on Base. Every transfer is recorded on a public blockchain — anyone can verify who sent tokens to whom, and no one (including us) can alter that history or prevent transfers between wallets. Liquidity is locked on decentralized exchanges, and all team and allocation locks are managed through Sablier, a third-party protocol with trustless, auditable time-locks. Nobody needs our permission to hold, send, or receive MORALS. When you send MORALS to someone, that moral judgment is permanently recorded onchain. The raw voting data — who endorsed whom, and how much — is fully decentralized and publicly readable by anyone.

What’s centralized: The Morals.fyi website, leaderboards, moral score calculations, and transaction classifications are all run by me, a person who identifies as centralized. I decide how moral scores are calculated and which entities appear on curated leaderboards. I expect to make adjustments to these components over time. The project’s ecosystem fund and airdrop wallets are also currently controlled by me (although most funds are time-locked). I also picked the Phase 1 airdrop recipients.

The benefits of this hybrid approach: I think it’s good to have this website be centralized because moral judgment is, by nature, subjective. The project will only be valuable and useful if most stakeholders view Morals data as a decently accurate representation of morality. This requires curation. Someone had to write the Constitution before it became widely embraced as a protocol. On this website, I have imposed some of my own editorial judgment, because judgment is kind of the point. I think that on day one this data will be compelling because of my initial judgment. But I might be wrong. This particular website may be obsolete next week if someone else comes up with a better way to interpret the onchain data. Anyone can just create their own websites which are remixes of what I’ve built. Here is some technical documentation which should make it very easy for you to quickly spin up your own version. You can completely ignore the airdrops, the “degrees of trust”, the moral score, and build something which better reflects your values. I’ll probably link to the different sites people create. This is the way in which I would like further decentralization to happen.

What’s left are the project wallets: I happen to know that my morals are impeccable, but I’m anonymous, so you don’t. This leaves my control over these big wallets as a legit concern one could have. I’m open to ideas about moving these funds to multisigs if the community feels that this is a major issue and other widely-trusted leadership in the community emerges. Feedback welcome. But meanwhile I will just be here, earning your trust. As the airdrops happen (eight quarterly phases across two years) and the ecosystem fund gets paid out, the project naturally becomes more decentralized. Once those wallets are fully distributed, my centralized power will be reduced to just a single website with an opinion. At that point, Morals is a fully distributed token whose onchain data anyone can read and interpret, and our site is just one lens among potentially many. Let’s get there!

I’m anonymous! For now. Perhaps an unexpected choice because embracing transparency is generally the moral thing to do. But I have reasons: One reason for this choice is about my own safety/security. Another reason is that this project is intended as a decentralized public good, and I think it should be evaluated on its own merits. Associating the project with one person is a potential distraction that goes against the spirit of decentralization. Another reason is that I primarily operate doing moral work with moral people in the social impact field in the USA. As you know, crypto is unfairly viewed by most social impact people as immoral. So openly launching a crypto project would require me to put in a fair amount of reputation management work in that world. I’ll probably be down to do that at some point, but for now I have bigger fish to fry. Eventually, I think there’s a good chance that I will dox myself for reasons related to my other work, but I don’t need that headache quite yet.

The other thing you should know about me is that I have some really important, morally good work I need to do, but I don’t yet have the financial freedom to give it the attention it needs. I deposited ~$10k into the MORALS liquidity pool, but this was not a financially comfortable thing for me to do. I have spent my life doing moral things at the expense of my own financial situation. My hope is to make enough money from Morals to give me the freedom to do my other important work.

Crypto is a place where you can create a lot of value quickly, and when I was brainstorming what crypto needed, I came up with Morals, which is a very “me” thing to come up with. So my hope is that even though you don’t know what my other work is, that you will be supportive of my need to sell my MORALS holdings (which vest in monthly unlocks over 2 years) somewhat promptly in order to fund the creation of this other very important thing. To me, the spirit of this project is to identify the moral actors in crypto, and actually enrich them. Not only with reputation, but with money. We need our most moral people to be able to operate from a position of financial abundance. I want to create a culture where moral actors can sell their MORALS to fund their good work, and when this happens it should be seen as the system working as designed. I am one of the people who needs this kind of support.

Let me know if there’s anything else that I can tell you about myself while still telling you almost nothing about myself! :)

The list of addresses that can appear on the thematic leaderboards is manually curated by the founder. Each leaderboard contains wallet addresses known to belong to people or organizations in that category. Some addresses are verified (confirmed by the owner or labeled on block explorers), while others could be inaccurate... just my best guess based on ENS names or public reporting. So please contact me (@morals on Farcaster or @morals_fyi on X) to let me know about any confirmed addresses that should be added to a leaderboard, or anyone who should be removed. If there’s someone you want to add, include the wallet address (or ENS name or Farcaster username) and evidence of ownership.

The overall “Best morals” and “Worst morals” leaderboards are intended to showcase regular people in the crypto community. If the biggest names appeared alongside everyone else, they’d likely dominate due to name recognition and volume of attention, and I think this would make it harder to do what we want to do: Recognize the people in our community who are being morally good every day. So addresses which I have curated to appear in their category-specific leaderboards won’t appear in the best/worst overall. The “Biggest givers” leaderboard is the exception: anyone who sends MORALS can appear there, whether they’ve been curated or not, since it measures participation rather than reputation.

Moral Questions are community-submitted moral dilemmas about specific people or entities. Anyone can create one by casting on Farcaster in this format:

@morals Is it moral for [subject] to [behavior]?

The subject can be a Farcaster username (like @cassie), an ENS name (like parishilton.eth), or a raw 0x wallet address.

When you cast in this format, the @morals bot automatically creates a dedicated page on morals.fyi and replies to your cast with the link. If you don’t follow the format exactly, the bot will either ignore the cast or reply with a hint about the correct format. If the subject can’t be resolved to a valid Ethereum address (for example, a misspelled username), the bot will let you know.

Once the page is live, anyone can vote by sending MORALS to the subject’s address. Sending ≥1 MORALS is a vote that the behavior is moral. Sending <1 MORALS is a vote that it’s immoral. The question page has big green and red buttons that make this easy: they open the Send MORALS modal pre-filled with the right amount and recipient.

The voting period lasts exactly 7 days. After that, the question is resolved as moral, immoral, or tie. Here’s how the resolution works:

Only wallets with good moral scores (50 or above) get counted. Votes from wallets with bad moral scores are visible on the page so you can see how many people voted each way, but addresses with bad morals are excluded in the calculation which formally determines the resolution of the question. Obviously if you’re trying to determine what’s moral, you should not give influence to the people who are already widely seen as immoral by the community.

One wallet, one vote. Each wallet gets exactly one vote, determined by their most recent send to the subject during the voting period. If you change your mind, just send again... your most recent send is what counts.

Resolution is by headcount, not by weight or amount. It doesn’t matter how much MORALS you sent or what your trust degree is. The resolution simply counts: how many good-score wallets said moral vs. how many said immoral? Whichever side has more wallets wins.

In the rare event of a tie among good-score wallets, the votes from wallets with bad moral scores are used as a tiebreaker. If it’s still tied after that, the question is resolved as a tie.

After resolution, the bot posts a reply to the original Farcaster cast announcing the outcome. The question page stays up permanently as a historical record, but voting buttons are removed and the page displays the resolution.

You can ask moral questions about anyone, including the same person multiple times, project wallets, or even yourself. There’s no limit on how many questions you can create. Go wild.

The @morals bot on Farcaster responds to three specific cast formats:

1. Proclaim someone's morals

Reply to any cast with exactly good @morals or bad @morals (nothing else in the cast). The bot will reply with an interactive widget that lets anyone send MORALS tokens to the cast author.

2. Ask a Moral Question

Cast @morals Is it moral for [subject] to [behavior]? where the subject is a Farcaster username (like @cassie), an ENS name (like parishilton.eth), or a 0x wallet address. The bot creates a dedicated page on morals.fyi where the community can vote for 7 days, then delivers the resolution.

3. Look up a moral score

Cast @morals is [subject] moral? where the subject is a Farcaster username, ENS name, or 0x address. The bot replies with their current moral score and a link to their profile.

All three formats are case-insensitive. The bot silently ignores any cast that doesn’t match one of these exact patterns, so don’t worry about accidentally triggering it in normal conversation.

The Time Machine captures a daily snapshot of the entire Morals ecosystem (every leaderboard, every moral score, every stat) and preserves it permanently. Think of it as a daily photograph of the moral landscape of crypto.

Each snapshot records the top and bottom of every leaderboard (overall, celebrities, corporates, crypto projects), the best and worst moral scores that day, who gave and received the most MORALS, and the total number of proclamations. It also records the exact formula parameters that were used for that day’s calculations — the confidence constant C and the global average good ratio m — so you can always verify how scores were computed at any point in time. (The Bayesian shrinkage weight K applied to m is a documented project constant and isn’t snapshotted day-by-day; if we ever change K, we’ll note it on the Time Machine page for that date.)

Why does this matter? Moral reputations change. Someone who’s a hero today might be exposed as a fraud tomorrow. The Time Machine lets you go back and see exactly where everyone stood on any given day: who was rising, who was falling, and when the community’s opinion shifted. It’s an immutable historical record of how crypto’s moral consensus evolved over time. Use the search feature to find any date since Morals launched.

The first filter defines the timeframe of activity which is displayed on every leaderboard on the page. For example, if you set it to “Past 24 hours” then the rankings you see will only be based on votes in the past 24 hours, ignoring all historical activity.

The second filter defines the voting population whose sends are incorporated into the data which is displayed. The default is “Include votes from all addresses with good scores”. The reason for this default view is that if you believe that the moral scores are generally accurate, then when looking for who are the most moral people you would probably only want to consider the views of people who are moral. Alternatively you can incorporate the votes of all addresses, only immoral people, and several other population segments that lend credibility in different ways.

The checkbox controls whether project wallet sends count towards what displays on the leaderboards. When checked (the default), every project wallet send is included regardless of what's selected in the “Whose opinion matters?” dropdown. For example, if you set the filter to only show sends from people with bad moral scores, you will still see airdrops from official wallets unless you also uncheck the checkbox. When unchecked, the leaderboards reflect only organic community proclamations.

You might have some wallets which are publicly tied to your identity and others which are anonymous. Should you use a publicly-known wallet?

Reasons to use a publicly-known wallet:

• Your identity can only benefit from participation in Morals if you participate with a wallet that people recognize as yours.
• If you build your reputation as a moral actor you may enjoy benefits from doing this. This is much harder to do with an anonymous wallet.
• The easiest way for people to send MORALS is using your Farcaster username. The best user experience may be for you to both receive and send MORALS using your Farcaster account. The second best way is using ENS names. Using 0x addresses has a bit more friction.
• The website lets people filter to only show input from people who have Farcaster and ENS, which means that if you use a wallet linked to these identities your votes could have greater cultural impact.

Reasons to use an unrecognizable wallet:

• You are a privacy maximalist.
• If you proclaim someone as good or bad, this action will be forever saved onchain, so you may not want to be held accountable for your votes in the future.

If you are worried about your known wallet being shamed as having bad morals, using an anonymous wallet for your activity won’t actually prevent this, since people will still send MORALS to the address they associate with you, regardless of whether you are using the same address when you send MORALS to people.

All data on the site (moral scores, leaderboard rankings, transaction counts, and statistics) refreshes every 5 minutes. This isn’t real-time, because recalculating moral scores across the entire trust graph is computationally expensive. Also, every time ZachXBT catches a crook, an angel sends a webhook which refreshes our calculations. 👼

Yes, and we encourage it. All the onchain MORALS data is public and freely accessible. We publish our full scoring formula, all parameter values, and our project wallet addresses so you can replicate, modify, or completely replace our interpretation. See our technical guide for building your own Morals site for everything you need: how to query the data, how to filter moral judgments from noise, how to strip out our editorial influence, and sample code to get started.

Go for it, weirdo. There are two scenarios here. Sending from one address to the exact same address is technically possible on the blockchain (the balance stays the same and you just pay gas), but it’s pointless. The more common case is someone who controls multiple wallets sending MORALS between them. Either way, the effect is minimal — each wallet counts as one vote, so proclaiming yourself good from one wallet (or a handful of your own wallets) adds only a tiny amount of weight to your score. The moral score is designed to reward broad endorsement from trusted wallets, not self-dealing.

Nope! Our initial airdrop included sending small amounts of dust to suspected bad actors to mark them as having bad morals. You can see the list of people who received this airdrop. You might expect that our list would include, for example, the North Korean hackers known as the Lazarus Group who have stolen billions of dollars worth of crypto. But we did NOT include them, because they are just one example of an entity on the OFAC SDN list. Basically the US government maintains a list of people who are suspected of doing bad things, and under US law we, as a US company, cannot send crypto to these people, even tiny, symbolic amounts like this.

The Morals team conducts sanctions screening on all token distributions to ensure compliance with OFAC regulations. Prior to each airdrop or token distribution, we screen recipient addresses against the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. Addresses identified on the SDN List are excluded from our distributions. For more information about OFAC sanctions, please consult the official SDN List at treasury.gov/sdn.

"It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question." - Eugène Ionesco