Eclipse

703 reviews, 26% of them positive.26% positive · 703 reviews· Influence factor 91, above 18% of accounts

The record

From 225 activities · Mar 2026

Eclipse is a Layer 2 blockchain that promised fairness and community-driven development but systematically betrayed supporters through unfair token distribution, poor airdrop execution, and dismissive leadership. Early community members and ASC NFT holders who invested time and money felt farmed and excluded, while the team prioritized insiders and later engaged in bear-posting about their own project. The chain has become a ghost town with minimal adoption, abandoned apps, and widespread reports of scamming behavior, broken promises, and toxic community management.

What people say

Received · 703 Given · 0

“The Chain is Dead”No one remembers what Eclipse chain is, but everyone’s going to remember how Eclipse farmed their users. Once they TGE, no one’s even eligible. how funny is that?

syndd · 1355· 11mo ago · negative21

“Worse Project ever”All Eclipse did was to stress us out, allow us spent Gas fees anyhow at the end of the day nothing for us, which is so sad

Izrael FX 🇳🇬🇧🇯 · 1246· 10mo ago · negative14

“Starknet#2”Useless from the beginning, ended in the trash bin, flushed their community in the toilet. I liked their marketing in the start but when they launched their tapping game it was already dumb af

Denis 杰尼斯 · 1261· 10mo ago · negative14

“Scammed chain, 0 to 100 real quick”Eclipse started with big words about fairness, community, and innovation. In practice, it turned into one of the more extractive L2 experiences I’ve seen. The airdrop design left real supporters sidelined, while insiders and randoms benefited. Fees on bridges were high, exits were messy, and trust evaporated quickly. The rhetoric about “morality” and “community-first” never matched their actions — users were milked, not rewarded. Instead of building lasting value, Eclipse became another cautionary tale of hype, poor execution, and broken trust.

Scarlett Stark · 1369· 1y ago · negative14

“"Eclipse Scam Users Exploited"”the Eclipse project was extremely disappointing. It took advantage of its users, forcing them to buy $2,500 NFTs while giving only $100 in rewards. Users were also pressured to buy Bitz tokens with $100, which are now worth just $0.50. This was one of the worst projects I’ve encountered. A negative review is far too mild for this team

mahan · 1280· 1y ago · negative14

“A Disappointment Behind the Promises”Eclipse may market itself as a “revolutionary” project in the industry, but the reality tells a very different story. Technical shortcomings, poor user experience, and most importantly an unfair airdrop process have made this project far from trustworthy. To begin with the developer experience, Eclipse is anything but the “user-friendly” environment it claims to be. The sluggish system, constant compatibility issues, and confusing documentation make the platform more of a burden than a support. While modern competitors deliver smoother and more efficient solutions, Eclipse still struggles with inefficiency and bloat. Performance is another major issue. Even simple tasks feel slow, the system consumes unnecessary resources, and frequent freezes make it unreliable. With this kind of track record, it is hard to imagine developers adopting Eclipse in the long run. But beyond all of these issues, the most controversial aspect has been the airdrop process. Instead of rewarding loyal supporters and early participants, Eclipse opted for a distribution that was widely seen as unfair and disappointing. Many contributors felt their efforts went unrecognized, further eroding confidence in the project. This not only highlights Eclipse’s technical weaknesses but also reveals a serious lack of integrity in community management. In the end, Eclipse is a project that lags behind technologically and has lost trust by mishandling its community. With faster, more transparent, and user-focused alternatives available, there is little reason to choose Eclipse over its competitors.

kratos · 1228· 1y ago · negative14

“Scam network”Long farming and bad distribution. Scam activity for web3 early users.

HeisenbergYC · 1373· 1y ago · negative14

“Eclipse technology”As an idea and technology, Eclipse was not bad, but the team decided to airdrop significantly only to OG role holders, they received ~20,000 tokens (~$8,000 at FDV). Also, ASC NFT holders where floor prices reaching ~0.66 ETH - got only 300 tokens, making the drop largely disappointing, but the mint price was 0.04 ETH. Imho, the project raised concerns with questionable moves before TGE, and the airdrop became the breaking point. The community quickly fragmented afterwards, so I hope it doesn't become a ghost chain after its airdrop, as a lot of other chains

pahan_alex · 1280· 1y ago · neutral14

“They didn't do a good community reward. They just gave points for clicks.”

kriptoken.eth 🪑 · 1314· 1y ago · negative14

“A Community Driven by Favoritism, Not Web3 Values”Eclipse has drifted far from its original on-chain ideals. What was once presented as a decentralized, community-first initiative now feels more like a society of loyalists, where rewards and recognition are handed out based on allegiance, not merit or actual contribution. The ecosystem increasingly resembles a closed circle those who "play along" or echo the right voices are favored, while others are sidelined or ignored entirely. It no longer feels like a space for open participation or innovation, but rather a group where conformity is rewarded and independence is punished. "When you build a community on fear, fanaticism, or greed, it can only end badly, no matter how good your technology is."

MNC ® 🪄🥷 · 1217· 1y ago · negative14

“A shameless grift that rode the Solana hype train and delivered almost nothing in return.”

0xMgD the Indomitable · 1251· 9mo ago · negative11

“A project that has struggled to find real traction”I’ve followed Eclipse for a long time and despite strong technical promises, it has been difficult to see meaningful adoption take shape. The narrative around speed and performance hasn’t translated into a clear ecosystem of users or applications. Progress has felt slow and disconnected from actual demand, and community activity remains limited compared to peers in the same space. It comes across as a technically ambitious project that has yet to turn its ideas into sustained usage or relevance.

kuldeep rajpoot · 1177· 9mo ago · negative11

‹ Back228 of 703 · most upvoted firstMore ›