Eclipse

704 reviews, 26% of them positive.26% positive · 704 reviews· Influence factor 90, above 18% of accounts

The record

From 204 activities · Mar 2026

Eclipse is widely characterized as a failed Layer 2 project that betrayed its community through unfair token distribution, broken promises, and poor execution. Early supporters—including NFT holders and active testnet participants—report feeling scammed after the TGE resulted in token price collapse, inadequate airdrops, and mass layoffs. The team faced criticism for toxic leadership, dismissive treatment of community members (labeling them as farmers and sybils), and a shift from long-term vision to short-term value extraction. The chain remains largely abandoned with minimal TVL and user activity, while leadership controversies—including allegations against founder Neel Somani—further eroded trust.

What people say

Received · 704 Given · 0

“Grifters”This guys are bad. They got money from community ans scammed them.

Kemzi📈📉 · 1294· 9mo ago · negative0

“Eclipse and the Cost of Missed Execution”From my perspective, Eclipse set expectations high with its narrative around modular design and flexibility, but struggled to earn lasting confidence from its users.

InfoFi Archivist · 1256· 9mo ago · negative0

“L2 yang tidak punya utilitas”campaign mainnet nya semua ponzi

0xrizrekt 💵 | 🐺 · 1238· 9mo ago · negative0

“Eclipse is speed without unnecessary noise”Eclipse feels like the same l2 that does not try to sell a fairy tale, but just does it quickly and clearly. without unnecessary marketing noise, without a circus for a tick. you can see that behind the project there are people who understand the infrastructure and why it is needed at all. speed, focus on developers and the feeling that this is not another experiment, but a working tool. if eth needs an upgrade without pain, eclipse looks like the right way.

0x58E0...24d2 · 1204· 9mo ago0

“Tap Tap”One thing comes in my mind When i see Eclipse one of the worst chain i ever see They did not make anything just copy paste and made a Tap Tap chain

Laugh Lab · 1205· 9mo ago · negative0

“Dead Project”The Team carried out a total rug and scam for the Project and ended up blaming each other for the scam.

LordPetroleum 👑 · 1214· 9mo ago · negative0

“X Good”

Duy 🐰🐰 · 1136· 10mo ago0

“:))”be my friend

Be-my-friend · 1191· 11mo ago0

“https://t.co/skR3tqNb2R https://t.co/rTYhf7r9sY”Original tweet saved by @PremiumSaltine_: "https://t.co/skR3tqNb2R https://t.co/rTYhf7r9sY" Authored at: 2025-10-11T23:50:11.000Z Author user id: 1512166664770670598 Link to tweet: https://x.com/EclipseFND/status/1977159829363081390

Ethos Agent · 1365· 1y ago · negative0

“Eclipse — Controversial airdrop design and misaligned NFT expectations signal trust and execution risks”Eclipse’s token launch and incentive design have drawn sustained backlash from early users and NFT supporters, who argue that distribution choices favored marketing optics and selective cohorts over long‑term contributors. The project’s handling of its genesis NFT expectations and the airdrop rollout has meaningfully damaged community trust. Skipping exposure—or at minimum, waiting for concrete governance, utility delivery, and transparent post‑mortems—appears prudent. What happened • Airdrop disappointment: Community sentiment turned sharply negative after the token claim and listing sequence, with many reporting small or inconsistent allocations versus expectations set during the lead‑up. Allegations included subjective lists, manual exclusions, and outsized rewards for event attendees compared to core participants. • Token launch whiplash: Price action immediately post‑claim compounded frustration, reinforcing the perception that distribution mechanics prioritized short‑term attraction over long‑term alignment. • Genesis NFT letdown: Holders of the project‑affiliated genesis collection expected preferential treatment or clear, durable utility; instead, many perceived their role in seeding early attention wasn’t reflected in the token design or rewards, intensifying the sense of a broken social contract. • Messaging vs. outcomes: Public claims of “community‑first” collided with subjective screening, shifting criteria, and post‑hoc explanations. Even well‑intentioned measures (e.g., banning team/investor participation) could not offset dissatisfaction with who did—and did not—receive meaningful allocations. Why this matters • Trust is the core currency in crypto incentives. When stated principles don’t match implementation, communities become more resistant to participating in future quests, meetups, or “social proofs,” especially if selection rules aren’t auditable. • NFTs as early risk capital: Genesis collections often serve as a project’s social and financial ignition. If downstream token economics under‑reward those holders, it undermines the model for future creators and communities. • Precedent setting: Highly discretionary airdrops (manual blacklists, subjective “loyalty” definitions) increase perceived rug risk for contributors who can’t predict how effort converts to rewards. Red flags to note • Subjective or undisclosed eligibility filters and blacklists • Event‑based rewards outweighing long‑term engagement or on‑chain tenure • Post‑launch explanations instead of pre‑published, auditable criteria • Token float and vesting optics optimized for listings, not alignment • NFT holders positioned as “community core” without commensurate utility or token share What would improve confidence • A public, immutable airdrop rationale: weights, time windows, data sources, and all exclusion rules, published before claims • An NFT holder bill of rights: clear, forward‑looking utility schedule or retroactive make‑good if expectations were set and missed • Transparent vesting/float management: who can sell, when, and why—plus safeguards against hidden insider routes • Independent review: third‑party verification of selection logic, wallet screens, and allocation math • Governance roadmap: specific powers for token holders beyond slogans (budget control, parameter changes, objective KPIs) Verdict Given the misalignment between the community’s expectations and the realized airdrop/NFT outcomes, Eclipse currently screens as high‑friction for contributors seeking fair, transparent upside. If participation is unavoidable, size positions conservatively, avoid pre‑commitments without auditable criteria, and require clear, enforceable utility for any NFT exposure. Otherwise, reallocating attention to projects that publish eligibility logic up front—and tie NFTs to verifiable utility—will likely deliver a better risk‑adjusted outcome.

barissomeroglu10.eth 🔺 · 1232· 1y ago · negative0

“Believie on Eclipse”Great project can't wait to see how it develops

Edbert · 1247· 1y ago0

‹ Back696 of 704 · most upvoted firstMore ›